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

Largest Land Owners on Earth

“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”

Well, that's mighty big o' you, madam. 

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres. 

Largest five personal landowners on Earth

Queen Elizabeth II	6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia	553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand	126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco	113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman	76 million acres

Sourced from the book "Who Owns the World", February 2007


Ten Largest Landowners in US

Land Grab: Media Mogul John Malone recently became the largest individual landowner in the U.S., edging out old friend, Ted Turner.

By Monte Burke

(This article appears in the 3/28/11 issue of Forbes Magazine, on newsstands now. Click here for a Q&A with Malone.)

When asked about the source of his lust for land, John C. Malone laughs. “My wife says it’s the Irish gene. A certain land hunger comes from being denied property ownership for so many generations.”

Malone, the 70-year-old billionaire chairman of Liberty Media, has well sated that hunger. He started his land feast slowly nearly two decades ago, collecting parcels in Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado. By the beginning of last year he had nearly 1 million acres. But in the last seven months, as property prices and the cost of borrowing have dropped, the hard-bargaining cable magnate’s land grab shifted into overdrive.

In August Malone bought the 290,100-acre Bell Ranch in northeastern New Mexico, after waiting years for it to drop to what he says was a “rational price.” (The ranch was initially listed in 2006 for $110 million, then for $83 million last year. Malone is rumored to have gotten it for closer to $60 million.) Then in February he made his biggest splash, snapping up 1 million acres of timberland in Maine and New Hampshire for a “fair price.”

With that acquisition Malone became the largest private landowner in the U.S., at 2.2 million acres, according to The Land Report, which tracks sales. He surpassed his fellow billionaire Ted Turner, who had held the title for the previous 15 years. Turner owns 2.1 million acres in the U.S. and has an additional 100,000 acres in South America.

The turnover at the top is fitting. Malone (worth $4.5 billion) and Turner (worth $2.1 billion) are longtime acquaintances and business partners. Malone served on the board of Turner Broadcasting in the 1980s and bailed out Turner’s company in 1987. In 2007, through Liberty Media, Malone became the owner of the Atlanta Braves, Turner’s old baseball team. (“I will always think of them as Ted’s team,” says Malone.) The two have neighboring trophy ranches in northern New Mexico (Malone’s 250,000-acre TO Ranch runs east from Turner’s 591,000-acre Vermejo Park Ranch.) And it was Turner, 72, who “first gave me this land-buying disease,” says Malone, when the duo flew a helicopter over Vermejo. Says Turner: “Over the years I’ve shared my experiences with John. I consider him a good friend and have great respect for him.”

So no Hatfield-McCoy here. Malone recently visited Turner, who was “down in the dumps because I still have lots of dry powder and he’s pretty tapped out,” jokes Malone. “I think if it was a race, Ted would concede.”

Turner seems happy to do just that, saying he was glad to see Malone make his latest acquisition. “We’re working toward the same goal–to be stewards of the land and make sure it’s preserved for future generations,” says Turner.

But though their conservation ends may be the same, their means differ. “Ted’s idea of tradition is to go back to pre-European times,” says Malone. Turner famously poisoned a stretch of Cherry Creek–which runs through his Flying D Ranch in Montana–to rid it of the invasive brown and rainbow trout. (He replanted the stream with native cutthroat trout.) At Turner’s ranch bison roam free over land that’s been cleared of most signs of human habitation.

Malone, on the other hand, says, “I tend to be more willing to admit that human beings aren’t going away.” So he believes that trees can be harvested without damaging the ecology and wildlife. (“I’m not an extreme tree-hugger,” he says.) He will continue the sustainable forestry operation on the Maine and New Hampshire land (purchased from GMO Renewable Resources, a private equity firm). Malone is also looking at wind-power opportunities on the property and will keep the land open for public recreation, a Maine tradition. Malone takes the same “working farm” philosophy with his western properties, like the Bell Ranch, where he raises cattle and horses.

Malone wants to “break even” on his land, but there is more than economics involved. “There’s the emotional and intellectual aspect of walking the land and getting that sense of awe,” he says. “I own it, sort of, for my lifetime.”

Like Turner, he has plans to conserve most of it for beyond his lifetime, through perpetual conservation easements. “But I’m not going to kid myself and think that 500 years from now, with population growth, that the government won’t start putting people on the land,” he says. “But at least I tried.”

Landowners

(Members of the Forbes Billionaires list in bold)

John Malone: 2.2 mn acres—With this year’s purchase of one million acres in Maine and New Hampshire, became the new top dog. Liberty Media chairman also owns property in New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado.

Ted Turner: 2.1 mn acres—Land in seven states. Strident environmentalist has more than 50,000 bison. Has begun renewable energy plant (solar) in New Mexico.

Red Emmerson: 1.722 mn acres—Runs family-owned timber company Sierra Pacific Industries, founded by father, “Curly.” Biggest landowner in California. Recently has begun placing some land in conservation easements.

Brad Kelley: 1.7 mn acres—Discount cigarette billionaire owns land in Texas, New Mexico, and Florida, mostly used to propagate rare animal species, like the pygmy hippo and okapi.

Irving family: 1.2 mn acres—Through the timber company, Irving Woodlands, the Canadian family owns forest land in Maine, most of which is sustainably harvested.

Singleton Family: 1.11 mn acres—Children of Dr. Henry Singleton, founder of Teledyne, Inc., run ranchland in New Mexico. Avid participants in local rodeos.

King Ranch: 911,215 acres—Land in Texas and Florida. Farm sugarcane, vegetables, citrus and pecans. The ranch produced 1946 Triple Crown winner, Assault.

Pingree heirs: 800,000 acres—Family’s Seven Island Land Company owns tract of land in Maine bigger than state of Rhode Island. Heirs of David Pingree, a 19^th century shipper.

Reed family: 770,000 acres—Through Simpson Lumber Company, owns timberland in Pacific Northwest.

Stanley Kroenke: 740,000—St. Louis Rams and Arsenal owner owns cattle and recreational ranches in Montana and Wyoming.

You can always find this blog via http://PROUT.Shows.it/ and comment below each post.  To discuss further in our forum and explore the subtleties of the Progressive Utilization Theory with others, go here: http://ProgressiveSustainMeetUp.has.it/

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

Progressive Theories, Their Purpose and Practicality

A theory is an exposition of the general principles that govern some aspect of life.  Hence, every theory must have a function.  Generally speaking, that function may be either explanatory or practical, though in fact any successful theory must necessarily be both. 
True knowledge is always both useful and usable information.

As PROUT is a socioeconomic theory, its purpose is to facilitate the happiness and welfare of all.  The Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT embody both the practical and theoretical essence of this theory.

In a nutshell, the theory is that an ideal society makes progressive utilization of everything.  Though the concept of progressive utilization sounds obvious, its implications require some amplification.  Hence, the theory is broken down into five fundamental principles.

Each of the principles enlarges on the preceding principles.  In other words, Principle 2 becomes practical only after applying Principle 1.  Principle 3 becomes practical only after applying Principles 1 and 2.  In this way, each successive principle not only adds insight into the theory of progressive utilization, but it also adds dimensions to the principles that precede it.

We may liken the practical aspects of PROUT to a lotus flower having five layers of petals.  The outermost layer corresponds to the first principle, and the innermost layer corresponds to the fifth principle.

The Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT are:

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 proper adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations.

5. Utilizations vary in accordance with time, space, and form; the utilizations should be progressive. 

You can always find this blog via http://PROUT.Shows.it/ and comment below each post.  To discuss further in our forum and explore the subtleties of the Progressive Utilization Theory with others, go here: http://ProgressiveSustainMeetUp.has.it/

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

Spiritual Humanism

Spiritual Humanism

PROUT is founded on the assumption that matter is not separate from consciousness but is rather a metamorphosed form of it.  Similarly, consciousness, is not the result of mental activity but rather thought is also a form of consciousness.  It is Consciousness that underlies psycho-physical reality and provides the inspiration for a rational view of life, moral integrity, and spiritual wisdom.

Spirituality and morality should not be equated with religious dogma and faith in God.  All religions are frankly dualist systems that separate humans from their creator and the creation.  The rationalist rebels against theology - Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant - also failed to escape the vicious circle of dualism.  To offer security, religion impressed upon people the need to submit before the imaginary will of God or a theological ethical code, sanctioned by the scriptures and defined by religious institutions.  Morality in this sense, however, is the absence of freedom.

A philosophy based on spiritual and moral values, on the other hand, is able to explain human existence - including desire, emotion, instincts, intuition, will and reason - as an integrated framework and do so in a way that is accessible to human comprehension.  Such a philosophy is required to build the new social organism and political institutions capable of fostering not only the harmonious relations of all races and cultural groups, but also the harmonious relation of human beings with all animate and inanimate objects.

Human existence is physical, mental and spiritual, with progress as an evolutionary continuum into higher consciousness and ultimately to the state of absolute freedom.   Simultaneously, spiritual progress can only be attained on a firm physical and mental base.  This physical and intellectual base has to be progressively adjusted to changing conditions of time and space.  The natural human aspiration is to achieve freedom in all three spheres.

In our march towards freedom we cannot neglect other living beings.  We have to develop a social system where all living beings can live securely, and where people can move towards emancipation by freeing their minds from superstition and dogma.  This universalistic spirit is NeoHumanism or Spiritual Humanism.  Human history thus far is a story of ruling classes trying to enhance their own social and material wealth at the cost of human values.  This is why temples, churches, scriptures, laws, constitutions, corporations and international trade agreements have become more important than human beings.  To confront this, PROUT maintains that a fundamental human philosophy is required to cement a new social system and not the changing social values based on self-interest embodied in contemporary ruling institutions.

Human values find their root in transpersonal essence, spirituality.  Spirituality is not mystic speculation of life after death, but is realized in relation to the manifest universe.  The philosophy of monism, which postulates the self to be in union with the rest of the universe and responsible for its well-being, is the essence of spiritual humanism.  Sarkar wrote in his book Neo-Humanism in a Nutshell:  Part 1:  “What does the state stand for, what is the use of these regulations, and what is the march of civilization for, if human beings don't get a chance to build a good physical well-being, to invigorate their intelligence with knowledge, and to broaden their hearts with love and compassion?   Instead of leading humanity to the goal of life, if the State stands in the way, then it cannot command loyalty, because humanity is superior to the State.”  

You can always find this blog via http://PROUT.Shows.it/ and comment below each post.  To discuss further in our forum and explore the subtleties of the Progressive Utilization Theory with others, go here: http://ProgressiveSustainMeetUp.has.it/

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

A Synopsis of PROUT

PROUT (an acronym for Progressive Utilization) is a socio-economic theory developed by Indian philosopher and social activist Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar in 1959, providing an alternative to both communism and capitalism.  PROUT rejects exploitation in all its forms and advocates economic democracy, based on the following guiding principles:

Minimum Essentials: The basic minimum essentials, such as, food, clothing, shelter, education and health, must be guaranteed to all members in the society as a fundamental constitutional right.  This means that it is the responsibility of a government and its economic system to provide job opportunities for all those who are capable of work.  These jobs must afford a purchasing capacity that secures the basic essentials to live in a given society.  PROUT supports welfare payments only for people with special needs or for those unable to work due to sickness or old age.

Purchasing Capacity: One of the most essential functions of the economic system is to continuously increase the purchasing capacity of every person in the economy.  Economic growth without increasing the purchasing capacity of a large section of the society is of no significance in PROUT’s economic system.

Inequality: People should be provided with opportunities to earn according to their talent and skills.  It is necessary to give higher incentives for more contribution to society.  However, highly unequal societies are detrimental for the social well-being of its people.  Therefore, inequality should be managed by maintaining a cap on wealth accumulation in proportion to the minimum earning capacity.  This is a dynamic ceiling that moves upward with the rise in minimum earnings and the fruits of economic progress are more widely distributed in PROUT's economic system.

Economic Democracy: PROUT’s conception of economic democracy strives for bestowing economic power to the people rather than capital owners or the state.  It envisages worker owned and managed co-operatives as the largest sector of the economy.  Nonetheless, PROUT accepts the role of private ownership of businesses, especially when they are small or simultaneously small and complex, and not involved in the essentialities of life of which should operate as cooperatives.  The role of state in managing key natural
resources is seen as desirable for the benefit of the wider economy.  However, local governments and local civic boards must be vested with as much power as possible for economic management of local resources and achieving both economic security and
full employment. 

Utilization and Distribution: The world’s resources should be utilized maximally for the benefit of the people and these resources should be justly distributed.  It is important to
note that maximum utilization does not mean indiscriminate exploitation of human and natural resources.  Utilization refers to proper use of sustainable and progressively scientific methods to serve the needs of society.

Types of Resources: PROUT recognizes all three types of resources, namely, physical, psychic and spiritual, and demands a balanced and well-adjusted utilization of all these resources for collective welfare.  For example, excessive focus on material development alone to the neglect of intellectual and spiritual needs of the people is considered detrimental for all-round welfare of the individual as well as the collective.

Progressive Utilization: The method of utilization is progressive.  It is dynamic and adjusts with changes in time, such as, the development of new scientific knowledge as well as changing social norms.


You can always find this blog via http://bit.ly/IntroducingPROUT and comment below each post.  

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

Environmental Destruction and Pollution

It can be safely said that financial interests are for the most part responsible for environmental destruction.  Most advances in modern science create detrimental side effects which require considerable time and effort to understand, and then to minimize.  This corrective process is expensive and cuts into profits—resulting in great opposition from corporate elites to implementing new safety standards and methods of environmental protection.  This is especially problematic as the direction of science is largely determined by what these elites decide upon.  It is well know that independent research that strives to address environmental problems often has difficulty being funded, especially if the results might damage an existing industry.  Research into non-fossil fuel based automobile engines, for example, is certainly going on, but with a fraction of the resources poured into fossil fuel research.  Alternative energy in general (solar, wind, bio-gas, etc.) is researched but with only a fraction of the funding nuclear energy receives.

In PROUT the control of science would not be determined by profit seekers.  The large scale key industries would be run by the state on a "no profit no loss" basis, and research would be out of the hands of corporate interests.  Each locality will rely on whatever resources are naturally available or can be synthesized artificially.  In this case the “polluter pays” principle is not just a slogan, it cannot be avoided.

Essentially, pollution is beneficial for only a short time period.  Corporate profits are increased through throwing off negative side-effects onto the environment and society as a whole.  Eventually, however, the long term effects of raping and polluting the environment will require tremendous effort and resources to correct.  PROUT maintains that the calculations of profits must include not only the cost of production, distribution, labor, etc., but equally important, the environmental and social costs involved.  Social costs includes all factors that negatively affect the mental, physical and spiritual capacity of people immediately and into the future.  For instance, the trucking industry is uneconomical from the stand point of social costs.  Currently highway maintenance costs are not calculated, the environmental impact is not properly evaluated, the damage done by depleting the earth's oil reserves is not considered, and the health problems resulting from environmental pollution are not considered—not to mention traffic congestion, accidents and the mental and physical strain on the drivers and their families.  Although trucking allows faster delivery and thus greater profits, from the social perspective as a whole, the railway system would be a better alternative.

The concept of social costs is integrally related to the idea of environmental sustainability.  In agriculture especially, the costs of using chemicals far outweighs the alleged short term benefits.  Agricultural pollution resulting from pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc., would be reduced by decentralized agriculture using the techniques of integrated, ideal farming (see Chapter Four).  Agricultural research could then focus on sustainability as well as quality and efficiency.  Already there is indication from applied research that output can even be increased using advanced natural techniques—not to mention the increase in taste and nutritional value.

From the point of view of sustainable economic development, anything that reduces the productive capacity of the earth and destroys the health of human beings and other life forms is definitely to be avoided.  Yet this is the path of the so-called global economy.  In capitalism, the quest for short term gain usually overrides consideration for the future.  It has been stated by scientists in international conferences, such as the Earth Summit, that the global economy is destroying ecologies at a rate of a thousand times faster than they can reproduce.  It has also been predicted that given the current rate of destruction, it will destroy the planet’s life support systems—ozone, breathable air, arable soil, potable water and the forests—in about fifty years.  It is therefore a life and death matter to reduce the economic decision-making powers of the corporate elites.  They have ignored repeatedly the considerations of the general welfare and they will continue to do so without governments and people intervening to curb their efforts.  

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

What is PROUT?

PROUT is an acronym for Progressive Utilization Theory, a socio-economic philosophy synthesizing physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of human nature with a goal of providing guidance for the evolution of a truly progressively evolving human society.

PROUT presents an alternative to the outmoded capitalist and communist socio-economic paradigms, each having been tried in myriad ways yet proven false as ideologies for a full spectrum of life.  Neither of these approaches have adequately met the physical, mental, social, and spiritual needs of humanity. PROUT seeks a harmonious balance between economic growth, social development, environmental sustainability, and between individual and collective interests. Combining the wisdom of spirituality with a universal outlook and the struggle for self-reliance, proutist thinkers and activists are creating a new civilizational discourse and planting the seeds for a new way of living affecting every realm of life progressively. 


A few basic tenets of PROUT:

Spirituality and Progress

Human beings are on an evolutionary path toward realizing greater thresholds of subtler realms of consciousness. True progress is movement leading toward self-realization in personal evolution, spiritual qualities such as compassion and love for all beings, and societal development both encouraging and expressing such evolutionary excellencies.  Material or intellectual gains do not necessarily constitute progress unless they contribute to deeper realms of transpersonal well-being.

The progressive orientation of society is maintained by making continual adjustments in the use of physical resources and psychic and social potentialities in accordance with spiritual and NeoHumanistic values. Human beings are encouraged to construct economic and social institutions to facilitate the attainment of our greatest potentialities.

Economic Democracy

Political democracy and economic democracy are mutually inclusive. PROUT advocates economic democracy based on local economic planning, cooperatively managed businesses, local governmental control of natural resources and key industries, and socially agreed upon limits on the individual accumulation of wealth. By decentralizing the economy and making sure decision-making is in the hands of local people, we can ensure the adequate availability of food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for all.

A decentralized economy can better ensure that the ecological systems of Earth are not exploited beyond their capacity to renew themselves. Environmental stewardship is a requisite for people who are dependent upon these systems for their own survival and well-being.

Basic Necessities Guaranteed to All

The basic necessities of life must be á constitutional birth right of all members of society. People cannot attain their highest human potential if they lack food, shelter, clothing, health care and education. Meaningful employment with a living wage must be planned to ensure adequate purchasing capacity for all basic necessities. The standard of guaranteed minimum necessities should advance with increases in the economy's productive capacity.  

With more enterprises in the hands of their workers, people's earnings can increase, and often their work hours can gradually reduce while productivity and profitability progressively increase. 

Leadership

For a benevolent society, it is essential that leaders are morally principled and dedicated to serving society as part of their personal progress. Authority should not be centred in the hands of individuals, but should be expressed through collective leadership. The viability of political democracy rests on an electorate possessing three factors: 

 education,
 socio-economic consciousness,
 ethical integrity.

Freedom

Individuals should have complete freedom to acquire and express their ideas, creative potential and inner aspirations. Such intellectual and spiritual freedom will strengthen the collectivity. Restrictions should only be placed on actions clearly detrimental to the welfare of others. Constraints need to be placed on the accumulation of physical wealth, as excessive accumulation by a few results in the deprivation of many.  

Ideas and transpersonal excellence can be explored without compromising the wellbeing of others, whereas accumulating excess material wealth can have detrimental affects on others, especially in natural resources and basic necessities. 


Cultural Diversity

In the spirit of universal fellowship, PROUT encourages the protection and cultivation of local culture, language, history and tradition. For social justice and a healthy social order, individual and cultural diversity must be accepted and encouraged.  PROUT also encourages cultural synthesis through intercultural and community engagement. 

Women's Rights

PROUT encourages the struggle against all forms of violence and exploitation used to suppress women. PROUT's goal is coordinated cooperation, with equal rights between men and women. PROUT seeks the economic, social and spiritual empowerment of women throughout the world, in part through economic democracy. 

Science and Technology

Scientific knowledge and technology are potential assets to humanity. Through their proper use the physical hardships of life decreases, and knowledge is gained about life’s secrets.

Time is freed for cultural and spiritual pursuits. However, the development and utilization of scientific knowledge must come under the guidance of spiritual and NeoHumanist values and ethical leadership. Without this, technology is often abused by profiteers and the power-hungry, resulting in destruction and exploitation of life deserving of fulfillment. 

World Government

PROUT supports the creation of a world governance system having a global bill of rights, global constitution and common penal code in order to guarantee the fundamental rights of all individuals and nations, and to settle regional and international disputes. As the global economy becomes decentralized, it will be advantageous to also have a global political system through confederation of nations. 

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

Progressive Continuity of PROUT

A theory is an exposition of the general principles that govern some aspect of life. Hence, every theory must have a function. Generally speaking, that function may be either explanatory or practical, though in fact any successful theory must necessarily be both. True knowledge is always both useful and usable information.

As PROUT is a socioeconomic theory, its purpose is to facilitate the happiness and welfare of all. The Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT embody both the practical and theoretical essence of this theory.

In a nutshell, the theory is that an ideal society makes progressive utilization of everything. Though the concept of progressive utilization sounds obvious, its implications require some amplification. Hence, the theory is broken down into five fundamental principles.

Each of the principles enlarges on the preceding principles. In other words, Principle 2 becomes practical only after applying Principle 1. Principle 3 becomes practical only after applying Principles 1 and 2. In this way, each successive principle not only adds insight into the theory of progressive utilization, but it also adds dimensions to the principles that precede it.

We may liken the practical aspects of PROUT to a lotus flower having five layers of petals. The outermost layer corresponds to the first principle, and the innermost layer corresponds to the fifth principle.

The Five Fundamental Principles of PROUT are:

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 proper adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations.

5. Utilizations vary in accordance with time, space, and form; the utilizations should be of a progressive nature.

Proutistic Solutions for Crime and Punishment

PROUT seeks to solve many existing problems in a creative, integrated way. No problems exist outside a larger social context, so it is necessary to address the very root causes. Here we shall address aspects of PROUT regarding crime, population, and the environment. Any one could of course be discussed at great length.

Crime and Punishment

The concept of justice is largely dependent upon society at a particular time and level of development. What is justice for one society may not be accepted as justice by another society. The common conception of justice is that there should be fair punishment to fit a crime. This is a kind of trader’s justice – an exchange where harm done must be paid in full. But this is a relative process. What is justice in one era, or in a particular society, may not be the same in a different time or place.

PROUT advocates that reformation should be more important than punishment. As humans, we are incapable of perfect judgment and will always have a limited capacity of evaluation. Hence we should not have the right to punish each other, only to correct each other as best as we are able. Therefore justice under PROUT is to be a code of corrective measures. And in such a world of relative justice, a great importance must be put upon the selection of judges. Judges need to be learned and possess penetrating intellects. They must also have indisputably good character.

Under the trial system there is much scope for error. There is no way to verify the testimony of witnesses. Investigators should research and present evidence too. Relying on lawyers’ interpretations is too dangerous; clever lawyers can be troublesome within the trial system. Perhaps judges should be able to make final decisions, with juries acting as their assistants. There should also be an appeals procedure to go along with this system.

Criminals should not all be classified the same way. There are many different reasons that people turn to crime. PROUT recognizes five distinct criminal types. First, there are criminals by instinct. Generally these are quiet people who enjoy petty crimes. Though easily instigated by others, this class of criminal typically does not commit major crimes. However, they are not easily educated so rehabilitation may be difficult.

The second category consists of those who are criminals by habit. People in this category may or may not be intelligent, but they revel in cruelty and are unable to understand compassion. Generally they are quite clever in committing their crimes. They also tend to become addicted to criminal behavior, and possess low moral strength. However, they are capable of being cured of this defect through rehabilitation.

A third class of criminals become so due to their environment. Family or peer pressures are the most common cause of this defect. Often parents with depraved tendencies will pass them on to their children. In dealing with these individuals it is important to discover where the bad influence comes from so that it can be dealt with. People who fall into this category are likely to degenerate even further if they are put into prison with those who are criminals by habit.

Criminals by necessity make up the fourth category. Most of the crimes in this world are motivated because of want of the basic necessities. Under PROUT, society will increasingly provide the basic necessities, and this category of criminals should be eliminated. People who do fall into this category ought to create social pressure to force a change in their circumstances. Society has no right to judge such behavior, since society itself is responsible for it.

The fifth and final category of criminals are those who become so through snap volition. This is a treatable mental condition. It expresses itself in temporary mental ailments such as crimes of passion or kleptomania. Mental rehabilitation here would be more effective than imprisonment.

7 Social Principles of PROUT

1st Social Principle of PROUT

In the flow of the social cycle, a class is always dominant.

Originally, no well-knit social system had evolved. So we may call this age the proletarian (shu’dra) era. In those days all people survived by their physical labor. Then came the era of the valiant, which we may term the warrior (ks’attriya) era. This was followed by the age of intellectuals (vipra). Finally comes the commercialist or capitalist (vaeshya) era.

As a result of the rapacity of the capitalist era, when the warriors and intellectuals are relegated to the level of proletariat, proletariat revolution (shu’dra viplava) occurs. As the proletariat has neither a strongly built society nor sufficient intelligence, the administration of post capitalist society goes into the hands of those who lead the proletariat revolution. These people are brave and courageous, and so they establish the advent of the second warrior era. After the successive order of proletariat-warrior-intellectual-capitalist eras comes revolution, and then the second cycle of similar successive order begins. Thus the rotation of the social cycle (samaja cakra) continues.


2nd Social Principle of PROUT

In the nucleus of the social cycle spiritual revolutionaries (sadvipras) control the cycle in order to liberate all.

Spiritual revolutionaries are those moral and spiritual aspirants who want to put an end to exploitation and vice by the application of force. They do not belong to the periphery of this cycle because they will control the social cycle positioned as its driving shaft or nucleus. The social cycle (samaja cakra) must revolve, but if the military in the warrior age or the intellectuals in the intellectual age or the capitalists in the capitalist age degenerate to play the role of exploiters instead of administrators, in that case the inherent characteristics of spiritual revolutionaries shall be to protect the honest and the exploited, and to bring under control the dishonest and rapacious exploiters, through the application of their special force.


3rd Social Principle of PROUT

Evolution is the acceleration of the speed of the social cycle by the application of force.

Spiritual revolutionaries (sadvipras) will initiate and establish the intellectual (vipra) age by bringing under control the warriors (ks’attriyas) as soon as the warriors degenerate into exploiters. Here the advent of the intellectual age, which should have come in natural course, is expedited by force. Such a change of eras may be called evolution (kranti). The difference between evolution and natural change is that in evolution the movement of the social cycle is accelerated by the application of force.


4th Social Principle of PROUT

Revolution is the acceleration of the speed of the social cycle by the application of tremendous force.

Revolution (viplava) is the application of tremendous force within a short time to destroy the formidable control of any era and replace it by the next era.


5th Social Principle of PROUT

Counter-evolution is the application of force to turn the flow of the social cycle in the reverse direction.

If any era reverts to the proceeding one by the application of force, such a change is called counter-evolution (vikranti). For example, the establishment of the warrior (ks’attriya) era after the intellectual (vipra) era is counter-evolution, and is very short-lived. Within a very short time the next era or the one after it again replaces this era. In other words, if the warrior era suddenly supercedes the intellectual era through counter-evolution, then the warrior era will not last long. Within a short time either the intellectual era or, by natural course the capitalist (vaeshya) era, will take its place.


6th Social Principle of PROUT

Reversing the movement of the social cycle by the application of tremendous force is called counter-revolution.

If, within a very short time the social cycle is turned backwards by the application of tremendous force, such a change is called counter-revolution (prativiplava). Counter-revolution is still more short-lived than counter-evolution.


7th Social Principle of PROUT

A complete rotation of the social cycle is called peripheric evolution.

A complete rotation of the social cycle, concluding with the proletariat (shu'dra) revolution, is called peripheric evolution (parikranti).

"Inside Job", A clear and articulate rendering of why we're in this economic malaise

'Inside Job' is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China. MPAA Rating: PG-13 © 2010 Sony Pictures Classics Inc. All Rights Reserved. 


INET's Interview with Charles Ferguson, the Director of "Inside Job"

Charlie Rose Interviews Charles Ferguson

Katie Kouric interviews Charles Ferguson



The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You

Eli Pariser on His New Book



On Democracy Now, May 27, 2011


Part 1 of 2  





Part 2 of 2 





At TED Talk, Long Beach, California February 2011

MidWest US Tornadoes on May 24, 2011