ANIMAL FORUM

On economic decentralisation and cooperatisation ...

Cooperatives

As you know, human society is one and indivisible. A human being cannot live
alone. If a person wants to drink water from a well, he or she needs a rope and
a bucket, and to tie the rope one needs a hook. For all these things, the help
of the others is indispensable. In society human beings have to work jointly
with others so that everybody can move forward collectively.

That is, society is the collective movement of a group of individuals who have
made a unanimous decision to move towards a common goal. If human beings move
closely together in all aspects of life, except for those few aspects, which are
very personal, the better it will be for the welfare of society. Only those
things that cannot be done collectively should be done individually. So, it is
always better for people to work together as far as possible -- the more that
human beings work together, the better it is. If this principle is not followed
the spirit of society will be broken, adversely affecting the very existence of
human beings. People have to eat food individually -- another person cannot eat
your food for you -- however a meal can be shared collectively. Where
individuality dominates human life, the environment, the welfare of different
groups and even the continued existence of humanity may be adversely affected.

---

Cooperatives not communism and not capitalism

In communism the slogan is, From each according to his capacity, to each
according to his necessity, but in the cooperative system the slogan is, Each
will get according to his or her capacity. Due to this slogan, a person will
try to do more labour. People will put all their talent and energy into a task
and production will increase.

In communism the leaders themselves try to avoid labor. They prefer to sit in
an office rather than work hard, thus there is sluggish production. In the
cooperative system, for example, people are issued shares in farming
cooperatives based on the amount of land that they farm under cooperative
management. Similar concepts apply to producers and consumers cooperatives and
all manner of industrial enterprise. In the communist system, this type of
participation is absent, so people do not feel oneness with their work. They are
led to believe that their needs will be supplied by the state, so they have no
incentive or interest in the system.

---

On decentralization

At the beginning of civilization, the desire to create arts and crafts arose in
the human mind. At that time artisans used to work at home, and arts and crafts
were produced in cottage industries. Men, women, boys and girls --
all participated in the creation of arts and crafts. Later people realized that
some arts and crafts could not be produced in every village; so a few combined
villages produced certain artifacts. If artisans had not combined together, they
would have suffered losses in the market place, and their numbers would have
been significantly reduced. So gradually human beings started to go and work in
places where production was done collectively, or the first factories. At that
time the few industries that existed were decentralized. In this connection one
thing should be remembered -- the more that arts and crafts are decentralized,
the greater the benefits for human society.

Decentralization does NOT diminish or dissipate economic potential. Rather,
decentralization removes regional disparity because wealth is distributed almost
equally everywhere. We do not find situations where people in some places cry
out in agony due to scarcity and starvation, while people in other places become
immoral due to excessive affluence and over abundance. Such problems only arise
from economic centralisation (whether capitalist in the hands of few
corporations or communist in the hands of party bureaucrats of the state). In
fact, industrial centralization is detrimental to a well-knit social order.

In a decentralized economy people do not have to leave their homes to work in
an industry or work is close at hand in the collective enterprise, and
consequently they are saved from the expenditure of maintaining two
establishments or travelling long distances. Moreover, decentralization
increases the possibility of saving labour, because people can earn their
livelihood while simultaneously taking care of their household responsibilities.
This arrangement is not possible under capitalism. Capitalism will never support
decentralization, because capitalist production exists to maximize profits.
Centralization means industry for profit, while decentralization means industry
for consumption - for the benefit of the consumer.

PROUTs approach, which will be supported by all rational people, is production
for consumption. PROUTs maxim is, Production for consumption, not production
for profiteering.

Capitalists want to produce commodities at the lowest costs and sell them at
the highest prices. To produce commodities cheaply, there must be efficient
transportation, cheap raw materials, cheap labor, cheap energy, adequate water
supply, etc. No matter what form capitalism takes -- individual capitalism,
group capitalism or state capitalism -- capitalists will always prefer
centralized production. All these forms of capitalism are essentially the same.
Thousands of industries have mushroomed around major cities due to this
capitalistic mentality. Remote places such on the other hand have been
neglected. They have gone to sleep, crying in cimmerian darkness. Perhaps only a
few people have even heard of these places. How could they? The people living
there are extremely poor. They are incapable of purchasing a woollen wrapper for
winter, what to speak of expensive woollen clothing. Take an example. In India
regional disparity is increasing. Calcuttas per capita income is twenty percent
higher than the rest of Bengal, while the Punjabs per capita income is higher
than Haryanas and Orissas. The people of Delhi enjoy much greater liberty and
comfort than the villagers of Purulia district. Regional disparity is
detrimental to the cause of a healthy social order. A progressive utilisation
theory is the only panacea. There is no other solution.

Communism is state capitalism, which is why it is not free from the defects of
capitalism. State capitalists, like individual and group capitalists, control
industries. State capitalism means state controlled industries. In other words,
in state capitalism industries are centralized. Communist countries support
state capitalism, which means centralized production. While communism appears to
differ from capitalism on the question of popular liberation, capitalism and
communism are the same internally. Fruits of the same variety may have different
colour skins, but their seeds are the same. Capitalism and communism are fruits
of the same variety.

To ensure the social and economic liberation of human beings, the maximum
amount of socio-economic decentralization is essential. While it may be
difficult to establish village-level economic infrastructure at present, there
is no insurmountable obstacle preventing us from establishing block-level or
quasi-regional economic infrastructure. As far as possible, the establishment,
operation and distribution of all industries should be done at block level. Only
when this cannot be done should industries be organized at a higher level.
Obviously, industries such as iron and steel factories cannot function in every
village, block and district, so they should function in a larger area. There are
some special types of key industries, which can conveniently function as either
small-scale industries or medium-scale cooperative industries. If some key
industries are structured in this way, they must be under state regulation. Care
should be taken to ensure that they are properly organized and widespread.

Capitalists should never control key industries, such as electricity grids,
telecommunications backbone networks, dams, roads, essential oil and gas
supplies, etc; otherwise the interests of the people will be partially if not
fully ignored. Moreover, if they are left in the hands of capitalists, many
different kinds of problems will arise. Normally only very large-scale key
industries should be under state control, and these industries should be
centralized instead of decentralized. The local government can often be the
agent managing such enterprises.

But industries that cannot be readily decentralized today may be decentralized
in the future due to changing circumstances. At that time the decentralization
of key industries must be implemented. That process will be one of
cooperatisation not privatisation.

There are also many other adverse effects of industrial centralization. For
example, in large cities it is difficult for people to remain healthy because of
the scarcity of fresh fruits, vegetables and milk. Junk food sales become
prolific. Immorality and corruption are rampant. Thieves, criminals, drug
addicts, alcoholics and antisocial elements easily conceal themselves and prey
on innocent people. Malnutrition, air pollution, water pollution as well as
other problems also exist in many cities in the West tend to be hidden from view
- rather the image is one of glorifying the city. All large industrial centers
presently suffer from these defects.

---

Decentralized economy

The most important economic issue before the leaders of all the countries in
the world today is how to increase the standard of living of their citizens
through the economic prosperity of the state. This is a burning question,
especially in those countries that are economically backward. The matter is not
very simple because in many countries people are still directly dependent on
nature for their subsistence. Only in a few countries have people been able to
utilize their knowledge and wisdom to solve their economic problems. Most
countries in the world -- whether capitalist or communist -- have adopted the
policy of economic centralization.

While the economies of the capitalist countries are centralized in the hands of
a few capitalists or a few capitalist institutions, the economies of the
communist countries are or were centralized in the hands of the party. After so
many years of economic centralization, how successful have these countries been
in improving the standard of living of the people? To assess this, the main
issue is whether or not economic exploitation has been eradicated and the common
people have been guaranteed ever increasing purchasing capacity. The fact is
that in a centralized economy there is no possibility that economic exploitation
can ever be eradicated or that the economic problems of the common people can
ever be permanently solved.

In many countires the common people have been led astray time and again by
vested interests. Innumerable promises have been made by political leaders, but
they have proved to be nothing more than cruel hoaxes. The policy of economic
centralization stands exposed as merely a strategy to accumulate increasing
capital in the hands of the capitalists. On the one hand the incredulous masses
are kept in good humor by promising them something negligible, and on the other
hand the capitalists go on amassing enormous wealth.

If we examine why this is happening, we will find that the cause is clearly
evident. All the economic policies in the country are formulated by a handful of
people who are pillars of capitalism. There is only one way to stop economic
exploitation and alleviate the plight of the common people, and that is to
implement a policy of decentralized economy in all the sectors of the economy.
Successful planning can never be done by sitting in an air-conditioned office
thousands of miles away from the place where planning is to be undertaken.
Centralized economy can never solve the economic problems of remote villages.
Economic planning must start from the lowest level, where the experience,
expertise and knowledge of the local people can be harnessed for the benefit of
all the members of a socio-economic unit. All types of economic problems can be
solved only when economic structures are built on the basis of decentralized
economy.

The basic question is how to remove the unhealthy influence of centralized
economy. The real issue is, who will bell the cat? If the vested interests fail
to be guided by righteous intellect, then people will have to take matters into
their own hands. They will have to create circumstantial pressure from all
sides, uniting around the slogan: Abolish centralized economy to end
exploitation; establish decentralized economy. Decentralized economy is the
only way that people can attain all-round welfare because it will not only
guarantee economic prosperity, but also pave the way for individual and
collective psycho-spiritual progress. Once peoples mundane problems have been
solved, they will have greater opportunities to develop their potentialities in
the psychic and spiritual spheres.

With the establishment of decentralized economy, economic and psycho-economic
exploitation will be eradicated, the gap between the rich and poor will be
minimized and individual and collective welfare will be greatly enhanced. This
in turn will create greater opportunities for the psychic and spiritual progress
of all members of society.

---

Control by local people

The first principle of decentralized economy is that the local people should
control all the resources in a socio-economic unit. In particular, the resources
that are required to produce the minimum requirements must be in local hands,
and all the industries based on these resources will have to be controlled
entirely by the local people. Local raw materials must be fully utilized to
produce all kinds of commodities necessary for the economic development of a
socio-economic unit.

Local people are those who have merged their individual socio-economic
interests with the socio-economic interests of the socio-economic unit they live
in. People may travel and live anywhere around the world. Wherever their base
is, it is natural to establish community links there and help develop that
community. Movement from one community to another simply means a reestablishment
of individual socio-economic intersts. Clearly, this concept of local people has
nothing to do with physical complexion, race, caste, creed, language or
birthplace. The fundamental issue is whether or not each person or family has
identified their individual socio-economic interests with the collective
interests of the concerned socio-economic unit. Those who have not done so
should be branded as outsiders. No outsider should be allowed to interfere in
local economic affairs or in the system of production and distribution,
otherwise a floating population will develop, causing the outflow of economic
wealth from the local area. Whose interests do they serve? What balance do they
represent between individual and collective rights. How can it be ensured that
collective rights will prevail against parasites willing to control but not
participate in the local community? If this occurs the area will become
vulnerable to outside economic exploitation and decentralized economy will be
undermined.

The surplus wealth, after meeting the minimum requirements of the people in the
local area, should be distributed among the meritorious people according to the
degree of their merit. For example, doctors, engineers, scientists and other
capable people engaged in various activities require extra amenities so that
they can perform greater service to society. While a common person may require a
bicycle, a doctor may require a car. But there must also be provision in the
economy for reducing the gap between the minimum requirements of all and the
amenities of meritorious people. To increase the standard of living of common
people, they may be provided with scooters instead of bicycles. Although there
is some difference between a scooter and a car, the gap that existed between a
car and a bicycle has been partially reduced. The economic gap between common
people and meritorious people should be reduced as much as possible, and
ceaseless efforts must be made in this regard, but this gap will never vanish
altogether. If the gap increases, the common people will be deprived and
exploitation will re-emerge in society in the guise of amenities not rationally
distributed. Decentralized economy leaves no such loophole because on the one
hand the standard of the minimum requirements must be increased, and on the
other hand the provision of amenities will be assessed from the viewpoint of the
collective welfare.

---

All above articles or extracts are by P.R. Sarkar.

Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar (1921-90), philosopher, social reformer and
spiritual teacher. Born in India. Sarkar inspired people to develop themselves
to their fullest, and to assume greater responsibility for the welfare of
humanity and the entire creation. Sarkar propounded PROUT in 1959.

Sarkar, in his own way, is more than the equal of the great historian Arnold
Toynbee. Sarkar not only illuminated the growth and inevitable decline that
comes from the acquisitive-Capitalist stage in societal evolution that has now
deeply infected the West, but offers wise counsel on what to do instead.

Oliver W. Markley, Professor of Human Sciences, University of Houston at Clear
Lake

Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India.

Former President of India, Giani Zail Singh

Sarkar, who did more than thirty years of studies and practical concrete work
with the poor population of India, is very important for all who yearn for a
liberation which starts from economics and opens to a totality of personal and
social human existence . . .

Leonardo Boff, Brazilian founder of Liberation Theology

Sarkars theory is far superior to Adam Smiths or that of Karl Marx.

Johan Galtung, Founder UN Institute of Peace Studies

--------------------------------------------------------




Yg32Wm3U9BCJ7DXDr