Progressive utilization theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:20, 26 February 2023

Revision as of 05:34, 1 March 2023

Line 2:

{{Redirect|PROUT||Prout (disambiguation)}}

[[File:PROUTlogo.gif|thumb|180px|Progressive utilization theory logo]]

The '''Progressiveprogressive utilization theory''' ('''PROUT''') is a [[socioeconomic]] and political philosophy created by the Indian philosopher and spiritual leader [[Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar]]. He first conceived of PROUT in 1959.<ref name=":1" /> Its proponents (Proutists) claim that it exposes and overcomes the limitations of capitalism, communism and mixed economy.<ref name="Crovetto2008" /><ref name="Skrbina" /> Since its genesis, PROUT has had an [[Economic progressivism|economically progressive]] approach, aiming improve [[Social change|social development]] in the world. It is in line with Sarkar's [[Neohumanism|Neohumanist]] values which aim to provide "proper care" to every being on the planet, including humans, animals and plants.{{r|:1}}

PROUT has not been implemented in any part of the world,<ref name=":17" /> though there are a number of books and articles on the subject.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-08|title=Homepage - PROUT Global - Progressive Utilization Theory|url=https://prout.info/|access-date=2021-09-09|language=en-US}}</ref>

Line 49:

Another criticism of [[Neoliberalism|neo-liberalism]] and capitalism in general is the centralization of economic power in the hands of the rich leads to the exploitation of the masses and ultimately to the degeneration of society.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|title=PROUT in a Nutshell part 12|last=Sarkar|first=Prabhat|publisher=Ananda Marga Publications|year=1986}}</ref>

Prout claims that both capitalism and communism have been built on shaky foundations, and identifies weaknesses to a point where a new market system is required.<ref name=":3" /> He heavily critiqued communism, indicating that one of the reasons the [[Soviet Union|USSRs]] experiment with communism did not work, causing the eventual implosion of their political structure, is that the sovietic central planning committees ([[Gosplan]]) had too much economic decision and cohersioncohesion power in the federation (see [[Marxism–Leninism]]).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/bb6ba675-6bef-4182-bb89-339ae1f7e792.pdf|title=An analysis of the Soviet economic growth from the 1950s to the collapse of USSR|last1=Serrano|first1=Franklin|last2=Mazat|first2=Numa|website=Centros Raffa|page=3}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/inactive/command.pdf|title=Are Command Economies Unstable? Why did the Soviet Economy Collapse?|last=Harrison|first=Mark|website=University of Warwick}}</ref>

Nonetheless, Sarkar observed aspects of [[Economic planning|market planning]] that help to create and sustain a healthy economy.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|title=Growing a new economy|last1=Bjonnes|first1=Roar|last2=Sevaergrah|first2=Caroline|publisher=Inner World Books|year=2016|isbn=9781881717539}}</ref> In summary, Proutist thought considers that planning allows the market to protect its stakeholders from the meanderings of [[Neoliberalism|neo-liberal economics]] where profit-motive speaks highest.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=http://www.prout.org.au/books/Self-Reliant%20Regional%20Development.pdf|title=Self-Reliant Regional proutist development|last1=Ghista|first1=Dhanjoo|last2=Towsey|first2=Michael|website=Prout.org|page=7}}</ref> However, he stresses that a planning committee at a national level should only outline the broader aspects of economic development, leaving the details to be resolved by planning bodies at a local level where problems are best understood and more easily dealt with.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.proutinstitute.org/download/block-level-planning/|title=Block-level planning|last=Logan|first=Ronald}}</ref> (see [[diseconomies of scale]]). Consequently, this kind of top-down planning will leave communities, enterprises and ultimately workers with a significant level of freedom to decide their own economic future (see [[Decentralized planning (economics)|decentralized planning]]).<ref name=":6" />

Line 55:

Prout also claims that the [[nationalization]] of enterprises is inefficient due to the larger costs and amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep state-controlled industries running.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Human Society part 1|last=Sarkar|first=Prabhat|publisher=Ananda Marga Publications|year=1959}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/12/economist-explains-1|title=Why nationalisation has fallen out of favour in Britain|work=The economist}}</ref> Yet, there are some industries that should be nationalized, operating on a "no-profit, no-loss" principle.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Prout in a Nutshell volume 4 part 21|last=Sarkar|first=Prabhat|publisher=Ananda Marga Publications|year=1986}}</ref>

Concerning wealth distribution among the population, Sarkar argues for an "optimal inequality" where the wage gap between the richer strata of society is substantially subsided.<ref name=":5" /> [[Richard B. Freeman|Richard Freeman]], a Harvard economist, points out income inequality comes from the monopoly of power and other activities with "negative consequences" in terms of social development.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/edsall-just-right-inequality.html|title=Just Right Inequality|last=Thomas|first=Edsall|date=2014|work=The New York Times}}</ref> Nonetheless, Prout is not in favour of total income equality, claiming that in a society where material motivation to work is absent, the willingness to strive for financial success and to thrive in the creative development of industry and society will be lost in its citizens. Therefore, this theory argues for the implementation of a policy allowing the most meritousmeritorious in society to receive added perks for the added benefits they bring to society. It is thus theorized that the communist's motto of [[from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs]] cannot work in the real world. Prout proposes instead a minimum and maximum wage, roughly attributed according to the value the work of each person brings to society. We see examples of attempts in this direction in companies like [[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon]] or [[Whole Foods Market|Whole Foods]].

Regarding neo-liberalism, Sarkar throws a new light to the concept of Adam Smith's [[invisible hand]], where individual producers acting self-interest benefit the community as a whole. Prout claims that, unchecked, societies economic elite will disrupt the just circulation of material wealth within society. The market will then require regulatory measures so as to create a functional economic system.{{Citation needed|date=May 2018}}

Line 94:

==Political parties==

Some political parties support the Progressiveprogressive utilization theory. They are:

* [[Amra Bangali]]

* [[Progressive Party of Aotearoa New Zealand]]