The global trading network today is guided by GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]. These should give
way to a new set of rules to create a new world order. It’s guiding principle should be the satisfaction of
human needs with minimum pollution without generating much new production.

There are two types of trade that are wasteful and unnecessary to meet human demands around the world.
One is intra-industry trade, which constitute more than half of global commerce; the other is trade in raw
materials. In order to minimize trade-induced pollution, GATT should be replaced by the following set of
principles:

1. Monopolistic corporations in all nations should be broken up in order to generate intense domestic
competition and preclude the need for foreign competition.

2. Intra-industry should be minimized. Multinational corporations should, as much as possible, produce and
sell goods in the same nation. Another possibility is for multinational firms to swap their production
facilities in different countries, for instance, General Motors exports cars to Europe but also imports them
into America from its European facilities. This is clearly unnecessary. GM should not export when it can
produce the products in Europe itself. Similarly, it should not import when it also produces cars in the
United States.

What is the point in generating transportation goods, producing pollution in the process? If GM’s plants
in Germany are uneconomical without their exports to the United States, the firm should simply sell them
to a German manufacturer and use the money for other productive but nonpolluting purposes.

3. International transfer of technology should be augmented. Instead of maximizing global trade, we should
maximize the international transfer of capital and technology. For instance, today Japan focuses primarily
on exporting goods, creating pollution in the process. If the Japanese companies instead opened plants
around the world, local needs would be met by foreign controlled local production and without much trade.
Japan would not need to import vast quantities of raw materials in exchange for its exports. Human needs
would still be met, but trade in goods and raw materials would be minimum.

4. The above principle suggests that countries rich in technology and capital should export them in
exchange for raw materials for home production. The Third World should not export primary goods but
should either import technology or invite foreign firms to utilize its raw materials in local production.
The idea is to locate plants near mineral rich areas as well as near population centers, so that
international trade can be minimized.

5. All resource-rich but industry-poor economies should impose high tariffs on imports of manufacturers
while vigorously generating competition in domestic markets. This would induce technology-rich countries
to locate their plants in tariff-imposing nations. Thus India, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the
resource-rich nations in Africa and Latin America should follow this policy, combining it with internal
competition. Domestic competition would sharply reduce inequality and thus stimulate the demand for goods
at home. This in turn would reduce the need for exports and trade.

6. Governments should direct their R and D spending to discoveries that can potentially reduce pollution
as well as the optimum size of plants, thereby reducing the need for economies of scale. Some firms
enter the arena of exports just to utilize such economies. New technologies should be developed to make
this unnecessary. It is worth noting here that the value of economies of scale is often exaggerated. The
highly competitive firms of Japan, after all, started small. Similarly, if economies of scale are so
important, why do firms have multiple plants in one country to produce the same product? These are some
of the rules that should replace GATT to create a new world economic order. The migration of factories to
mineral-rich areas can trim international trade by as much as 25 percent without reducing global living
standard. The same is true of intra-industry trade. We can eliminate it altogether without much effect on
planetary production. In other words, global trade can be cut by at least 75 percent without much harm to
overall output. But while the output effect of trimming trade would be small to negligible, the benevolent
impact on the environment would be tremendous. Energy use would plummet, the oil price would tumble,
oceans would be safe from oil and chemical spills, the atmosphere would be more secure from toxic gases,
the risk of accidents would be smaller, and our ears would be less exposed to deafening noise. Such would
be the beneficence of minimum international trade and competitive protectionism.

Ravi Batra, Ph.D., is a world renowned economist and the author of half a dozen books, including
The Great American Deception and The Myth of Free Trade.

The Olympic Games are taken seriously by many countries. Aside from the economic sphere, it is another avenue for the West to display its “superiority” over the rest of the world. How is this achieved? Levi Obijiofor and Sohail Inayatullah take us into the hidden meanings of the world’s greatest sporting event By Levi Obijiofor and Sohail Inayatullah.

A wide-eyed TV commentator in Australia remarked at the end of a pulsating Olympic semi-final soccer match between Nigeria and Brazil in which the former triumphed: “This is unbelievable! Nigeria of all countries!”

In similar tones, headline writers in the West’s leading press described the victory over Brazil as an “upset”.
This phrase, especially as it relates to the Olympic Games, is significant.

At the heart of such journalism is the misleading construction of the Olympics as an apolitical event. We are
misled not in the sense of being blind to favoritism—but through propagation of the assumption that the
Olympics represent all of humanity’s triumph, that winning athletes represent the culmination of human
excellence. The deeper meta-level of politics, in which the Olympics are essentially a massive Western exercise
in cultural domination, is avoided.

But this should not be a surprise since “civilization” has come to mean Western civilization. Indeed, the
Olympics are about the ascension of the West. The Olympics flame passing on unextinguished from ancient
Athens to the modern era is about the unproblematic transmission of Hellenic values to global culture.
The flame should not be doused, meaning that the values of the West should not be challenged. Like Mount
Olympus, they should stand tall above all other peoples, values and visions.

The Olympics Are Western
The Olympic Games have for years been dominated or hijacked by sporting events those are basically Western in
origin. When a non-Western athlete or team excels in an Olympic event which is traditionally Western, the feat
is perceived as an upset. Or there are genetic factors that are brought in to account for it. Those
long-distance runners from Kenya, we are told, have many hills to climb as they herd their sheep. Effort,
traditional family structures, traditional training techniques, and cultural importance given to specific
bodily skills are overlooked.

These rationalizations apply mostly to sportsmen and women from the non-West. Contest therefore is not
on the ground of sports but on the ground of political constructions, in terms of valuing certain
sports, histories, and cultures over others. If this is not the case, why do we have to have the Winter
Olympics, arguably designed for the West and the countries “blessed” with winter to have their own games?
No one remembered to design another Olympics for those countries that, by reason of geography, have only
dry and rainy seasons. Can’t we also have a Steaming Olympics, a Dry Olympics, or even a Wet Olympics?
We cannot, since the Olympics, even as they claim universality, are particular. Athens, we should
remember, does not experience the monsoons.

By promoting the image of the Olympics as global and by ensuring that every country participates in the events
determined by Western authorities in the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the West is indirectly
promoting its own values. The tragedy however is that many members within the IOC are from the non-West. Yet
decisions aboutthe summer Olympics still almost always seem to leave the non-West with no viable alternatives.
Of course there are options such as boycotting future Olympic Games if the inclusion of traditional sports from
the non-West is rejected by the IOC.

Marginalization
The dilemma is that non-participation in the Olympic Games means marginalization in the international economic
and political spheres. Avoiding the Olympics relegates a country to the dustbin of nationalistic history. If
one plays and loses badly, as most of the non-West do, a deep-seated cultural inferiority complex arises. All
that is left to do is to join, to be “developmentalized”.

If one plays and wins, beating the West at their own game, speculation is rife about the use of
performance-enhancing substances, as with China’s women’s distance running, or simplistic reference
to genetic advantages.

The West, originators of the Olympics, just can’t take defeat as a fact of life. At stake are not sports but
cosmology, worldview, and most recently nation. Thus, to invest resources in preparation for the Games every
four years is to play “catch-up” with the West. Above all, participation in the Games is participation in
another form of forced marketing of Western values.

Unfortunately, non-Western countries have been “infected” with this ideology under the guise of sports
development. How many non-Western countries spend as much money developing their traditional sports as they
do developing those of the West?

Neglected Sports
Traditional sports from the non-West are not recognized and have been kept out of the Olympics because the
West has not “blessed” them as genuine sports. Yet some in the non-West, for example, strive to compete in
such Western sporting events as beach volleyball, horseback riding, rhythmic, gymnastics, and synchronized
swimming. With ballroom dancing now an Olympics sport, let us hope that non- Western nations do not begin
to invest in this sport. Yet, if they don’t they will continue to lag in the medal count, which could also
be considered another GNP indicator count.

But what if non-Western nations focus on sports in which they have a comparative advantage? How, for example,
would the IOC react to suggestions to include traditional events like… drum dancing, hand fishing, tree
climbing with bare hands, palm wine tapping and consumption, a 100-metres sprint race pushing discarded car
tyres or rims, running with an egg delicately placed on the head, a sack race, trap shooting with slings or
catapults but no guns (what the West can do with a gun a skilled African marksman can do with the catapult),
wood chopping or kabadi—traditional wrestling—as in Pakistan? What about camel riding in order to
accommodate the Maghrebs of the Sahara region? and so on….

With all these included in a refined Olympics, will the West continue to dominate? As a Somali proverb states,
“What you lose in the fire you must seek in the ashes.” Is such a level playing field possible?

The future option for the non-West in the Olympic Games must be either to build on its own model of
traditional sports or to utilize its numbers in the IOC to force a change. The non-West cannot continue
participation in an Olympic Games where winning on Western terms is its essence. To do so is to promote
inequity and further humiliation.

Winning in Order to Win
More characteristic of the Olympics than winning on Western terms has been the aggrandizement of winning
itself. It is more important than cultural exchange and refinement of the human spirit, contrary to Olympics
propaganda claims. To illustrate the point that winning and losing have become the two key Olympics words,
let us return to the 1992 Barcelona Games.

Asked why his colleagues on the U.S. basketball team (the “Dream Team”) were not staying in the same Olympic
village as other athletes to make friends, one of the players reportedly said, “We are here to win gold, not
to make friends”.

The same theme was evident in several advertisements during the Atlanta Games, as recorded by Roy
MacGregor of The Ottawa Citizen. Here are a few: “You don’t win silver, you lose gold”; “If you’re
not here to win, you’re a tourist”; “Second place is the first loser”; and “No one train for
second place”.

These sentiments run counter to the views of the founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, who
said that “the important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part”. By promoting the
importance of winning, Olympics sponsors are propagating the message that winners are superior, that winners
are from the West, and that the non-West are losers and are therefore inferior to the West.

Each culture has its own sports. Some are individualistic, some competitive, some based on ancient myths.
By giving official credence only to the sports of one culture, our sports bio-diversity is lost.

Beyond the Sovereign Nation
The context of sports is domination. Winning is all that matters. Winning boosts a nation’s image, turns
winners into instant millionaires, and unifies long-time domestic enemies. More than that it reinscribes
the nation as the natural and only form of governing sovereignty. West, nation, and winning become natural
and synonymous. Can we imagine an Olympics where there are different sorts of “territoriality”? Perhaps a
line-up of nations, ethnicities, individuals, communities, transnational corporations, and even
civilizations.Can we imagine a situation where there is excellence and challenge but not in the context
of “winning”? The desire to win also encourages men and women to cheat and bypass the most sophisticated
drug testing kits available, ultimately harming their own bodies.

Women and Sports
The Olympics are also primarily about traditional male values. Women’s sports, like the Yugoslav girls’
game of lastis (where girls play with an elastic rope and jump up and down in infinite variations), is
one example. Women, also, as we know from studies on competition, would prefer a negotiated score in
which all parties are happy. For example, if the game is drawn, many women are satisfied with that
conclusion while men would prefer a “sudden death” (with all the metaphorical meanings behind it).

Olympic sports, from a feminist perspective, have either developed from a warrior tradition such as fencing
or from leisure time, that is, when women were taking care of the home economy. Indeed, the origin of the
Olympics lies in preparing men for war. As with the non-West, the inclusion of women has been in the terms
and values of male Western games. Women’s terms and values have been excluded largely in the same sense
non-Western culture has.

Lobbying for Change
Olympics as apolitical, humanity’s struggle for global excellence? We don’t think so. But bringing these
issues up is not easy. As with religion and politics, deconstructing the Olympics can be seen as an
unpatriotic task. It might be argued that there is no Western hegemony, so let non-Western nations lobby
the IOC for their own sports, or don’t give the Olympics so much attention.

The Games are only a matter of individual athletes in friendly competition. But can non-Western nations
lobby for alternative sports? Can they develop a global following even if the sport being played has some
cross-cultural appeal?

Our argument is that resources are limited and media exposure is even more limited. And the Olympics do
matter. It is a billion-dollar industry. One only need to look at the effort socialist nations gave to
the Olympics to see their value in prestige. Challenging the Olympics is bothersome because most of us
have bought the idea of the Olympics as universal, as the purest of all human expressions. To locate it
in other discourses is to undo primal tribal-national emotions.

Still, there is beauty in seeing athletes run faster, swifter and stronger. Competition and keeping scores
do lead to excellence. A Zen of sports where the process is more important than the outcome is only part of
the story. Outcomes are important. There is a charm in seeing individuals of many cultures mingle together
for two weeks. Even if the flags of nation-states reinforce the ugliness of patriotism, the Olympics do
create internationalism even if they do not create a universal humanism.

Cultural Enshrinement
Thus, we argue not for the elimination of the Olympics but for its transformation, and generations ahead,
we need redefinition of the Olympics concept. New indicators of performance and achievement instead of
the simplistic medal tally might be useful.

Bruce Wilson, for example, argued that chatter about Australia surpassing its 1956 record in 1998 should
be seen in the context of a 32 million Australian dollar sports investment, nearly a million dollars per
medal won. Perhaps we need a ratio after the medal tally like medal/investment in sports. Burundi or
Namibia might then be the real winner of the Olympic Games. Why not an indicator such as medal/GNP also?

We also need an Olympic Games for the non-West and women where there is neither victor nor vanquished,
where excellence is achieved without domination. Ultimately, that is the solution, an alternative Olympics
where traditional games and the cultural stories behind them are enshrined. Hawaii already has a day for
traditional Hawaiian sports. These are critical because they teach the young ancient ways of knowing, of
relating to the environment.

Sports teach us about each other, about our myths. They create inner and outer discipline. They concentrate
the mind. They are also a way toward intergenerational solidarity, where the old teach the young. Above all,
sports, as originally conceived, should promote a culture of peaceful co-existence and friendliness.
Unfortunately, all these ideals have changed. Today, competitors weep openly when they lose and when they
win, making it difficult to understand the essence and spirit of the occasion. Sportsmen and women also
sometimes trade abuses and punches with one another and with officials. Sometimes limbs are broken and
lives are lost, not through accidents but through deliberate acts of hatred.

Would these alternative Olympics be globally televised against the mystique of Athens? Of course not. At
least not until Asian and African nations begin to control their own mass media. Challenging the Olympics
is ultimately about taking back one’s history and body from nations and giant media firms that own athletes
and monopolize sponsorship of them. It’s also about fighting media imperialism and all forms of imperialism
thrown up by multinational sponsoring organizations. It is about fighting patriarchy and the modern
nation-state system. Finally, it is about creating a new future, a planetary civilization beyond West and
non-West.

References:
MacGregor, Roy. “Swoosh, only winning matters at these Games,” The Ottawa Citizen, August 3, 1996,
p. 2. Wilson, Bruce. “Is overtaking the Melbourne medal tally such a big deal?” The Courier-Mail,
August 2, 1996, p 47.

Political democracy requires a population that is well educated, with a high standard of morality and a keen socio-economic consciousness. Otherwise money can manipulate elections and corrupt politicians. Corruption and mismanagement in the past has resulted in a crushing external debt that reduces social services to pay exorbitant interest.

Economic democracy means regional, democratic control of resources, ceilings on the super accumulation of wealth, employee ownership and cooperative management of medium-scale economic enterprises, and guaranteed employment with sufficient wages for purchasing basic necessities–food, clothing, housing, education and health care. An ideal constitution should guarantee these rights and prevent financial exploitation.

Venezuela is today at a critical juncture: though wealthy in natural and mineral resources, millions of its people suffer in desperate poverty. Selfish greed has created a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor. Materialism is rapidly destroying our natural environment with no thought for the future. There is need for deep structural transformation. Prout offers a new socio-economic paradigm that provides social justice for all based on human and spiritual values.

Below are some very brief points that we believe should be included in the new constitution:

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

1. Every person is guaranteed the five minimum necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care.

2. Every person has the right to a job with adequate purchasing power.

3. Cultural expressions and indigenous languages must be protected.

4. The country’s bio-diversity and endangered species must be protected, and pollution of the air, water and land is prohibited.

5. Spiritual and religious practices for self-realization must be protected.

6. No expression of these rights can be allowed to violate cardinal human values.

7. Three socio-political principles must be guaranteed:

a) people should not be allowed to lose their jobs until and unless alternative employment can be arranged for them;

b) people should never be forced to convert from one religion to another;

c) no one’s mother (native) tongue should be suppressed.

8. The penal code must be based on universally accepted cardinal human values such as the right to a decent life. Capital punishment is banned.

9. Quality education must be guaranteed for all and free of political interference. This includes objective
knowledge, ethics, character building, creativity, spirit of cooperation and service, and selfknowledge.

10. We are all members of one human family without divisions. No person can be discriminated against because of race, sex, color, language, beliefs, sexual orientation, origin, or health status.

THE ECONOMY

Economic democracy is essential to eliminate poverty and continually elevate the standard of living of everyone. For this reason, the following policies should be implemented:

1. Private enterprise will be permitted and encouraged for small-scale businesses that produce non-essential items.

2. Most enterprises will be run as cooperatives. Industrial and agricultural, producers and consumers coops will produce essential items.

3. Key industries will be administered by the government.

4. A ceiling on income and wealth will be established to prevent superaccumulation and economic exploitation.

5. Raw materials should not be exported out of the country. Rather they should be processed or refined in the local region and then sold for local consumption. The excess can then be traded or sold abroad.

6. The banking system should be run as cooperatives, while the Central Bank will be controlled by the government. Money should be based on proportional quantity of gold bullion.

7. In addition to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government, there should be the addition of an independent financial department. This will monitor government spending and publicize the strengths and weaknesses of its programs. This department will keep the accounts of the other three branches and prevent corruption. All of these powers should function independently.

8. The first priority of the government shall be to guarantee the production of the five minimum necessities to all people at accessible prices. Each region of the country must be made self-sufficient in these five necessities.

9. Impoverished regions will be developed especially through the development of agricultural cooperatives,
agro-industries and agricoindustries. This decentralization of the economy will create economic democracy,
in which the local people will make all economic planning. Foreigners may not interfere in economic planning.
Profits may not be exported out of the country, but rather should be re-invested for the development of the
country.

10. Income tax should be abolished, rather tax should be placed on the production of goods.

References:
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Proutist Economics: Discourses on Economic
Liberation. Ananda Marga Publications, Calcutta, 1992.

It looks like Venezuela is not just another banana-oil republic after all. Many here feared that with the April 11 coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela was being degraded to being just another country that is forced to bend to the powerful will of the United States. The successful counter-coup of April 14, though, which reinstated Chavez, proved that Venezuela is a tougher cookie than the coup planners thought.

The coup leaders against President Chavez made two fundamental miscalculations. First, they started having delusions of grandeur, believing that the support for their coup was so complete that they could simply ignore the other members of their coup coalition and place only their own in the new government. The labor union federation CTV, which saw itself as one of the main actors of the opposition movement to President Chavez, and nearly all moderate opposition parties were excluded from the new “democratic unity” cabinet. The new transition cabinet ended up including only the most conservative elements of Venezuelan society. They then proceeded to dissolve the legislature, the Supreme Court, the attorney general’s office, the national electoral commission, and the state governorships, among others. Next, they decreed that the 1999 constitution, which had been written by a
constitutional assembly and ratified by vote, following the procedures outlined in the pervious constitution, was to be suspended. The new transition president would thus rule by decree until next year, when new elections would be called. Generally, this type of regime fits the textbook definition of dictatorship.

This first miscalculation led to several generals’ protest against the new regime, perhaps under pressure from
the excluded sectors of the opposition, or perhaps out of a genuine sense of remorse, and resulted in their
call for changes to the sweeping “democratic transition” decree, lest they withdraw their support from the
new government. Transition President Pedro Carmona, the chair of Venezuela’s largest chamber of commerce,
immediately agreed to reinstate the Assembly and to the rest of the generals’ demands.

The second miscalculation was the belief that Chavez was hopelessly unpopular in the population and
among the military and that no one except Cuba and Colombia’s guerilla, the FARC, would regret Chavez’
departure. Following the initial shock and demoralization which the coup caused among Chavez-supporters,
this second miscalculation led to major upheavals and riots in Caracas’ sprawling slums, which make up
nearly half of the city. In practically all of the “barrios” of Caracas spontaneous demonstrations and
“cacerolazos” (pot-banging) broke out on April 13 and 14. The police immediately rushed-in to suppress
these expressions of discontent and somewhere between 10 and 40 people were killed in these clashes with
the police. Then, in the early afternoon, purely by word-of-mouth and the use of cell phones (Venezuela
has one of the highest per capita rates of cell phone use in the world), a demonstration in support of
Chavez was called at the Miraflores presidential palace. By 6 PM about 100,000 people had gathered in the
streets surrounding the presidential palace. At approximately the same time, the paratrooper battalion,
to which Chavez used to belong, decided to remain loyal to Chavez and took over the presidential palace.
Next, as the awareness of the extent of Chavez’ support spread, major battalions in the interior of
Venezuela began siding with Chavez.

Eventually the support for the transition regime evaporated among the military, so that transition president
Carmona resigned in the name of preventing bloodshed. As the boldness of Chavez-supporters grew, they began
taking over several television stations, which had not reported a single word about the uprisings and the
demonstrations. Finally, late at night, around midnight of April 14, it was announced that Chavez was set
free and that he would take over as president again. The crowds outside of Miraflores were ecstatic. No one
believed that the coup could or would be reversed so rapidly. When Chavez appeared on national TV around 4 AM,
he too joked that he knew he would be back, but he never imagined it would happen so fast. He did not even have
time to rest and writesome poetry, as he had hoped to do.

So how could this be? How could such an impeccably planned and smoothly executed coup fall apart in
almost exactly 48 hours? Aside from the two miscalculations mentioned above, it appears that the
military’s hearts were not fully into the coup project. Once it became obvious that the coup was being
hijacked by the extreme right and that Chavez enjoyed much more support than was imagined, large parts
of the military decided to reject the coup, which then had a snowball-effect of changing military
allegiances. Also, by announcing that one of the main reasons for the coup was to avoid bloodshed and
by stating that the Venezuelan military would never turn its weapons against its own people, Chavez
supporters became more courageous to go out and to protest against the coup without fear of reprisals.

Very important, though, was that the coup planners seem to have believed their own propaganda: that Chavez was an extremely unpopular leader. What they seem to have forgotten is that Chavez was not a fluke, a phenomenon that appeared in Venezuela as a result of political chaos, as some analysts seem to believe. Rather, Chavez’ movement has its roots in a long history of Venezuelan community and leftist organizing. Also, it seems quite likely that although many people were unhappy with Chavez’ lack of rapid progress in implementing the reforms he promised, he was still the most popular politician in the country.

The media and the opposition movement tried to create the impression that Chavez was completely isolated
and that no one supported him any longer. They did this by organizing massive demonstrations, with the
extensive help of the television stations, which regularly broadcast reports of the anti-Chavez protests,
but consistently ignored the pro-Chavez protests, which, by all fair accounts, tended to be just as large.
The television channels claimed that they did not cover pro-Chavez demonstrations because protestors
threatened their lives. While this seems unlikely since the demonstrators usually unequivocally want their
demonstrations covered by the media, they could have gotten protection, if they had cared to.

The Media

Nearly the entire media is owned and operated by Venezuela’s oligarchy. There is only one neutral newspaper,
which is not an explicitly anti-Chavez newspaper and one state-run television station. During the coup, the
state-run station was taken off the air completely and all of the other media kept repeating the coup
organizer’s lies without question. These lies included the claim that Chavez had resigned and had dismissed
his cabinet, that all of the demonstration’s dead were “martyrs of civil society” (i.e., of the opposition,
since the media does not consider Chavez supporters as part of civil society), and that Chavez had ordered
his supporters to shoot into the unarmed crowd of anti-Chavez demonstrators.

The media never addressed the repeated doubts that members of Chavez’ cabinet raised about his resignation. Also, the media did not release the names of those who were shot, probably because this would have shown that most of the dead were pro-Chavez demonstrators. Finally, the media edited the video footage of the shootings in such a way as to avoid showing where the Chavez supporters were shooting-namely, as eyewitnesses reported, at police and individuals who were shooting back while hidden in doorways. Also, they did not show the pro-Chavez crowd repeatedly pointing at the snipers who were firing at them from the rooftop of a nearby building.

These media distortions in the aftermath of the coup drove home the point just how powerful the media is at creating an alternate reality. Those Chavez supporters who were at the demonstration and witnessed the events realized more than ever that power needs a medium and that those who control the media have much more power than they let on. This is why the television stations became a key target in the hours leading up to Chavez’ reinstatement. The take-over of four of the eight stations was essential to Chavez’ comeback because it showed the rest of the military and the rest of Venezuela that Chavez still had strong support among the population and that if the people really wanted to, they could fight for what was right and win.

Quo Vadis Chavez?

An aspect of the rise of Chavez to power that is often forgotten in Venezuela is that as far as Venezuelan presidents are concerned, Chavez has actually been among the least dictatorial. True, Chavez is a deeply flawed president with many shortcomings, among which one of the most important is his autocratic style. However, earlier presidencies, such as that of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993), the killing of demonstrators were nearly a monthly occurrence. Also, the outright censorship of newspapers was quite common during the Perez presidency. None of this has happened during the Chavez presidency.

President Hugo Chavez is an individual who raises the passions of people, pro or con, unlike anyone else. It almost seems that Venezuelans either love him or hate him. A more balanced picture of the president, however, would show, first, that he is someone who deeply believes in working for social justice, for improving democracy, and believes in international solidarity. Also, he is a gifted and charismatic speaker, which makes him a natural choice as a leader.

However, one has to recognize that he has some very serious shortcomings. Among the most important is that
while he truly believes in participatory democracy, as is evidenced in his efforts to democratize the
Venezuelan constitution, his instincts are that of an autocrat. This has led to a serious neglect of his
natural base, which is the progressive and grassroots civil society. Instead, he has tried to control this
civil society by organizing “Bolivarian Circles” which are neighborhood groups that are to help organize
communities and at the same time to defend the revolution. The opposition easily stigmatized these circles,
however, as being nothing other than a kind of SS for Chavez’ political party. Another crucial flaw has been
his relatively poor personnel choices. Many of the ministries and agencies suffer from mismanagement.

Finally and perhaps the most often mentioned flaw, is his tendency for inflammatory rhetoric. Accusations that Chavez divided Venezuelan society with his constant talk about the rich and the poor are ridiculous, since Venezuelan society was divided along these lines long before Chavez came to power. However, by trying to belittle his opponents by calling them names, such as “escualidos” (squalids), he made it virtually impossible for real dialogue to take place between himself and his opponents. |

The crucial question that Chavez-supporters and opponents alike are now asking is whether Chavez has grown
through the experience of this coup. In his initial statement after being freed from his military captors,
was, “I too have to reflect on many things. And I have done that in these hours. . I am here and I am
prepared to rectify, wherever I have to rectify.” Right now, however, it is too early to see if he really
is going to change his ways, so that he becomes more productive in achieving the goals he has set for
Venezuela.

While Chavez’ many progressive achievements should not be forgotten, neither should his failures be
overlooked, most of which have important lessons for progressives everywhere. The first lesson is to keep
the eyes on the prize. Chavez has become so bogged-down with small day-to-day conflicts that many people
are no longer sure if he remembers his original platform, which was to abolish corruption and to make
Venezuelan society more egalitarian. While greater social equality is extremely difficult to achieve in a
capitalist society, it is fair to say that Chavez’ plans have not had enough time to bear fruit.

He has a six-year social and economic development plan for 2001-2007, of which only a small fraction has so
far been implemented. However, on the corruption front, he has fallen seriously behind. The second lesson is
that the neglect of one’s social base, which provides the cultural underpinnings for desired changes, will
provide an opening for opponents to redefine the situation and to make policy implementation nearly impossible.
By not involving his natural base, the progressive and grassroots civil society, Chavez allowed the
conservative civil society, the conservative unions, the business sector, the church, and the media to
determine the discourse as to what the “Bolivarian revolution” was really all about.

The third lesson is that a good program alone is not good enough if one does not have the skillful means for implementing it. Chavez has some terrific plans, but through his incendiary rhetoric he manages to draw all attention away from his actual proposals and focuses attention on how he presents them or how he cuts his critics down to size.

Finally, while it is tempting to streamline policy-implementation by working only with individuals who will not criticize the program, creates a dangerous ideological monoculture, which will not be able to resist the diverse challenges even the best plans eventually have to face. Chavez has consistently dismissed from his inner circle those who criticized him, making his leadership base, which used to be quite broad, smaller and smaller. Such a narrow leadership base made it much easier for the opposition to challenge Chavez and to mount the coup.

Whether Chavez and his opposition have learned these lessons remains to be seen. Venezuelan society is still
deeply divided. One has to recognize that, at heart, this conflict is also a class conflict. While there
certainly are many Chavez opponents who come from the lower classes and numerous supporters from the upper
classes, the division between Chavez supporters who come from the lower light-skinned classes and the
opponents who come from the higher dark-skinned classes cannot be denied. What Venezuela needs, if social
peace is to be preserved, is a class compromise, where social peace is maintained at the expense of a more
just distribution of Venezuela’s immense wealth. However, today’s globalized world makes such a compromise
increasingly difficult to achieve because free market competition militates against local solutions to this
increasingly global problem. But perhaps Venezuela is a special case because of its oil wealth, which might
allow it to be an exception. Such an exception, though, will only be possible if power plays, such as the
recent coup attempt, come to an end.

Gregory Wilpert is a former U.S. Fulbright scholar in Venezuela. He lives in Caracas and is currently doing independent research on the sociology of development. He can be reached at: Wilpert@cantv.net

Little remains of the numerous conflicts between these two camps owing to the collapse of Communism beginning about ten years ago. The victory of private enterprise, with its claim of being based in the cherished reality of human freedom, covered the victory with a moral and humanistic cast. “The End of History”, as Francis Fukuyama entitled his 1992 book, does appear to be here—and just in time for the 21st century.

Others would say that the history of human freedom has only started—and that there are alternatives to the behemoths of both largescale enterprises like corporations, the type of private enterprise at issue here, and government authority over society as dominant motifs. One such alternative was advertised on television throughout much of 1999. The ad promoted something called “Florida’s Natural” orange juice as a product of a “co-op of Florida growers whose only business is making juice. They own the land, they own the trees, they own the company.” This co-op message, plainly and clearly delivered, stuck out from the usual glut of slick and clever corporate self-promotion as immaculately as a white gown amongst dark business suits for those as accustomed as most Americans are to a steady (albeit forced) diet of corporate messages only.

Further checking revealed that the co-op, called CitrusWorld, Inc., based in Lake Wales, Florida, comprises 12 grower organisations owning close to 60,000 acres of citrus groves, with a 540-acre citrus fruit processing center capable of extracting juice from over 10 million pounds of oranges every 24 hours. The juice is sold in liquid and frozen forms as a broad variety of juice products. The co-op also has a processing plant in Fullerton, California, and has recently planted over 15,000 acres of new groves in South Florida.

Cooperatives in this country have existed since its founding. President Washington’s cabinet contained a
co-op advocate. Subjecting co-ops to damnation by faint praise as just another way to do business
(something implied by President Reagan, for example) misses the point, however. Co-ops are not just
another way to do business. They are the next step forward in human freedom and democracy. A step that
will take us beyond the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and all other efforts aimed at
lifting people out of the socially repressive aspects of monarchies and the Middle Ages.

 Who Own Americans?
In the typical corporation, whether employing a few dozen or a few hundred thousand people, control is
centralized at the top in the hands of a small number of relatively wealthy shareholders and high-level
executives. All others are, to use a Prout term, “subordinated” to their desires and decisions. The vast
majority of people working in these structures, including mid- and lower-level managers, are under their
control either directly or indirectly. To use the language of government, they lack the freedom to govern
themselves within the corporate structure. True freedom to decide is reserved for a few. This consolidation
of authority makes corporations “private” in spite of the fact that the buying and selling of shares on
the open market makes them seem to be “public” entities.

Thus, though ideologues of the modern system of thought called Liberalism like Francis Fukuyama, Milton Friedman (who wrote Capitalism and Freedom), and a multitude of others claim that we live in the freest of conditions, reality is something else when we look at how the private sector is set up along lines that could be called more fettering and authoritarian than free or democratic. It is more accurate to say that we lose our freedom—and democratic rights—when we go to work, and that private enterprise is a mechanism that institutionalizes this loss. On the door to every corporation should read the inscription, “Democracy not allowed. Leave your rights at the door.”

The New Synthesis
Co-ops resist the deprivation of freedom inherent in corporate enterprise. Rather than centralize decision-making, they decentralize it so that all members partake in key decisions, either directly or through a board of directors that they themselves elect. It is like the difference between being told by your parents what to do (even at age 50 or 60)
and being able to decide for yourself. Or between being told how to vote by party apparatchiks and weighing the virtues of various candidates and voting for yourself.

In dialectical terms, co-ops transcend the mediation and alienation inherent in both the large-scale private
enterprise of Capitalism and the centralized government control of the economy of Communism. The former
interpose a relatively small number of powerful corporate shareholders between employees (including most
managers) on the one hand and significant decision-making power and other legal benefits like rights to
profits on the other. The latter interposed the state, party apparatchiks and bureaucrats. Even trade unions,
said to be the most advanced form of labor organization in modern industrial societies, fail in this regard
They maintain the mediation between employer and employee rather than unify employer and employee in
worker/manager ownership, as co-ops do. The welfare state, the ambition of the modern Liberal Left, especially
on the federal level, also fails to overcome this mediation.

Both unions and the welfare state also have to contend with the caprices of political democracy, which has no
principled commitment to improving prevalent economic conditions. Often-lost battles for better income, better
working conditions, a shorter work week, mandatory health insurance and the like will continue until this
mediation is overcome, as will, most likely, extreme economic disparity.

Psychological Deprivation
Cooperatives overcome the contradiction between the promise of freedom and its extensive denial in the
economy. They also advance humanity psychologically and socially. Insofar as they extend decisionmaking
and other benefits beyond a small circle of key share-owners and executives to working members as a matter
of right, based on recognition of human freedom and rationality, they are psychosociologically embodiments
of a more mature condition of humanity.

Corporate enterprise, to compare, is a system that prolongs childhood and adolescence for the majority
since it reserves substantial freedoms and rationality for a few key players. By consolidating
organizational power and subordinating others beneath them in employee status, these few potentates
also instill a psychological condition of subservience in those beneath them, a condition broken only
at the risk of being fired. In the sense of being autocratic-dictatorial, large-scale private
enterprise, like that in large corporations governing many people, resembles the Communism it reviles
and the monarchies it overthrew. Its whole structure contains an intrinsic, fundamental social
inequality, not simply differences in opportunities to accumulate wealth. This social inequality is not
remedied by either equal civil or political rights since it is an essential part of modern economic
dynamics and the civil rights system. In Freudian terms, employee status resembles the infantile oral
receptive stage of character development.

“By the oral-receptive character Freud means the person who expects to be fed, materially, emotionally and intellectually. He is the person with the ‘open mouth,’ basically passive and dependent, who expects that what he needs will be given to him, either because he or she deserves it for being so good, or so obedient, or because of a highly developed narcissism that makes a person feel he is so wonderful that he can claim to be taken care of by others” (Fromm).

Employees of course work for a living, but they are essentially passive recipients of the orders of executives and owners. As a result of their work and status they expect to be taken care of via paychecks and benefits and to be relieved of the responsibility for decision-making characteristic of the mature personality. Many people operate from the oral-receptive stage of existence; many others who are mature and capable however are forced into this state by anti-democratic, authoritarian economic structures.

This category of character applies even more to the consumer mode of existence, by which people select from among the products and services offered them by others. Consumption of course is to a large degree oral-receptive by nature, but it can be more pro-active if organized cooperatively. In consumer co-ops consumers decide for themselves which products should be sold in their stores and have active, direct relations with manufacturers rather than submit to the tender mercies of middlemen. Large-scale private enterprise utilizes both socio-economic roles—the employee and the consumer—to impose or reinforce the psychological condition of dependence. Psychologically more mature conditions—independence, pride, and greater self-repect—are systematically stunted.

The main structural difference between corporate and communist enterprise is that in the former a relatively
small number of business owners and managers, instead of the monolithic state and its agents, accumulate
economic decision-making powers and rights over the majority of society. In both cases, however, working
people are administered like cattle or machines, not full-fledged participants in company policy-setting
procedures. Compare Bill Gates giving orders down the ranks to tens of thousands of employees with yourself
discussing freely and deciding democratically in a cooperative you own jointly with other working members, and
you will begin to get the idea about what is at stake.

Cooperatives are not just another business option—they are another species of economy altogether because of the way they affect and embody freedom. To the extent that freedom is a part of our humanity, co-ops reflect our humanity far better than either large private enterprises controlled by a few key players or Communism. And since, according to some philosophers, deliberative freedom, and not blind obedience or deference, is an element of morality, co-ops can better embody morality, too. This makes them a moral imperative, not just a business or political choice of convenience. The moral, humanistic economy of choice is mainly cooperative.

The moral and humanistic superiority of cooperatives is currently no shield against private enterprise,
however. Dan McSpadden of the marketing department at CitrusWorld declined to answer questions about the
co-op in large part because of the possibility that corporate juice manufacturers would use the information
against the company. A very real possibility considering the competitive—or, in less polite terms,
carnivorous—ethic of the private sector.

How Americans Lost Economic Freedom
The stage for the subservient position of most Americans in the economic structure was set at the nation’s founding. Then the economy was largely agrarian. Self-employment was the norm.

According to historian Joyce Appleby, the ideological ambience of the young economy was strikingly characterized by “the association of America’s prosperity with free labor —the free and independent labor of farmer-owners and their families” (italics added). Family farms were the expected norm—not employeeship, which to Americans of that time may have appeared closer to plantation slavery or European serfdom than independence.

Nevertheless, there was no prohibition or restriction on the exchange or accumulation of property. It is the
right of exchange and accumulation, otherwise known as the free market, that led to the accumulation of
productive property in fewer and fewer hands and the consequent demotion of free and economically independent
Americans to dependent hired-hand status. Most modern Americans have lost a freedom and independence that
earlier Americans once had. Rather than making people free, the “free” market, for most people, removes it.

Modern politics by both Left and Right is a continuation of what Prout terms the “subordination” inherent in employeeship.

The Left, after promoting the welfare state, government regulation and strong unions for several decades last century, has now widened and significantly shifted its focus to promote environmental protection, civil and cultural rights for racial and ethnic minorities, and gay agendas, using the free market as its economic engine.

The Right of course still promotes private enterprise and bitterly opposes any infringement on it. Entrepreneurial ventures and small family enterprises may receive support, but not in principle at the expense of corporations and shareholders. The freedoms the Right promises via the economy are radically curtailed when they concern
employees, which most Americans are. A large number of supporters of the Right are thus under an illusion about their own politics, and myopically assume only government can be the enemy of liberty. Neither Left nor Right promotes as a matter of principle the “insubordinate” kinds of economy embodied in small entrepreneurial
ventures, small family enterprises and cooperatives.

The current stage was set for the Left, or New Left, during the 1960s, when it made its fateful break from the communist-influenced economic thinking of the Old Left. The African-American civil rights movement came to serve as a paradigm for other social groups who in turn adopted the garb of the oppressed, including women, gays, and other racial and ethnic groups.

In opting for civil rights like desegregated schools and social venues as well as, later on, other rights against civil discrimination, the New Left effectively abandoned the Old Left’s goal of dictatorial control of the economy. As a result the condition of employeeship continues, though it would have anyway and in more extreme form under governmentcontrolled enterprise favored by communists had they come to power. In other words, the subordinated socioeconomic status of most Americans continues with the acquiescence of the main trends of the New Left. Unions, for all their value to working people, also perpetuate this subordination.

What Is to Be Done
Cooperatives like CitrusWorld stand as a repudiation by example to both the corporate private enterprise politics of the Right and the welfare state/minority civil rights focus of the New Left. Though no political, educational, social or religious leaders are taking up liberation economics via the cooperative cause at the moment, this is what is to be done if the majority of Americans, including minorities, are to taste true freedom, and greater dignity, in the economic sphere. According to Prout, to free the maximum number of working citizens from subordination the cooperative movement should include the manufacturing, service and finance sectors, not only agriculture. An
economic result of this step upward in dignity will be reduced economic inequity, another goal of Prout. Since co-ops greatly widen the population of owners, they will decentralize wealth into the hands of tens of millions more Americans—and not by taxation, which is unreliable for this purpose and is highly vulnerable to special interest
lobbying and the political centralization of power over society in the federal government.

CitrusWorld sells their fine-tasting orange juice and other products around the country and overseas under the brand names of Florida’s Natural (orange, grapefruit, apple, orange-pineapple and others), Bluebird, Texsun, Adams and Vintage, and are licensees of other brands. You can find their website at http//www.floridasnatural.com.

References
Appleby, Joyce. Capitalism and a New Social Order The Republican Vision of the 1790s, New York University
Press, New York, 1984, p. 42. Fromm, Erich. Greatness and Limitations of Freud’s Thought, Mentor,
New York, 1981, p. 53. Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. Proutist Economics Discourses on Economic Liberation.
Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha, Calcutta, 1992, pp.128-45.

Buy the book through your local bookstore or online from Amazon.com. Comments on Understanding Sarkar

“The next generation of South Asians will consider themselves fortunate that scholars like Sohail
Inayatullah have helped to keep open a humane and plural vision of the future for them”.
–Dr. Ashis Nandy, Director, Center of the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. Author of The Intimate
Enemy and Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias.

“A superb book. Deeply inspiring and provocative. The Sarkar-Inayatullah combination makes very good
reading indeed. Inayatullah introduces the fascinating world – in time, in space, and in social space
–of P.R. Sarkar”.
–Johan Galtung, President of Transcend: A Peace and Development Network and author of over seventy
books on peace tudies, futures studies, international relations, Gandhi, and social theory. Formerly,
Professor of Peace, Political Science and Sociology at the Universities of Bern, Saarland, Hawaii and
Witten-Herdecke.

“Dr. Sohail Inayatullah is the leading example of a new generation of global thinkers, actors and
visionaries. While firmly attached to and informed by the culture into which he was born, and
passionately and yet rationally committed to facilitating the future of South Asia, Sohail Inayatullah
is also a global — it is not too much to say, cosmic — figure as well, carrying in his very person the
tensions and hopes of a future which is at the same time both local and global.
–James Dator, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures
Studies, University of Hawaii. Secretary-General and President of the World Futures Studies Federation,
1982-1990.

“In addition to the service he is rendering by bringing to a wider audience the thoughts of a very
important thinker, Sohail Inayatullah provides an extraordinary contribution to social theory with an
unusual combination of analytic rigor and boundary challenging imagination”.
–Professor Michael Shapiro, University of Hawaii is the author of numerous books onpolitical and
social theory including, Reading the Postmodern Polity, Reading ‘Adam Smith’, Violent Cartographies and
Cinematic Political Thought, For Moral Ambiguity: National Culture and the Politics of the Family 2001.

“In this scholarly and inspiring work, Sohail Inayatullah brings to life the contributions of the
remarkable Indian visionary, theorist, and social activist Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. Skillfully blending
his understanding of both Eastern and Western scholarly traditions, Inayatullah looks at history from
a non-eurocentric perspective that also takes into account the thinking of some of the best known
Western macrohistorians. This book is not only highly instructive; it also never loses sight of what
Sarkar called neo-humanism – the consciousness that we are part of an interconnected whole and that
a good society is one that manages to represent harmoniously the spiritual needs of its individuals”.
–Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice & The Blade, Sacred Pleasure, and Tomorrow’s Children.

“Sarkar’s writings on historical processes offer a refreshing alternative to the orthodox interpretations
of Toynbee, Hegel and Marx. He makes Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations seem parochial in
comparison. Dr.Inayatullah skillfully weaves Sarkar’s comprehensive overview of cultural life-cycles into
a coherent whole, through which the full sweep and scope of the fundamental forces that shape history can
be rendered. Despite the magnitude of the canvas upon he paints, his is a work of systematic and focused
scholarship. This book should be required reading for anyone looking to understand macrotheories of social
change from an non-eurocentric, holistic, and synergistic perspective”.
–Dr. Tim Dolan, Associate Professor of Political Science at Southern Oregon University and Director of
the Master in Management Program.

“Sohail Inayatullah is the world’s leading scholar of Sarkar’s thought. His latest book, Understanding
Sarkar, is sweeping in scope – quite literally a philosophical tour de force. By contrasting Sarkar’s
ideas to some of the greatest minds in human history, Inayatullah has achieved a remarkable philosophical
integration that is both breathtaking in its vision and relevant in its possibilities for creating
societal change. Indeed, if you want a better grasp of Sarkar’s comprehensive worldview, I can think of
no better source than Inayatullah. Brilliant”.
–Roar Bjonnes, co-founder of Center for Sustainable Villages, writer, editor of Prout Journal, and
contributing editor of New Renaissance

“Dr.Sohail Inayatullah’s book offers an excellent entry point for those wanting to explore the fascinating
and challenging ideas of P. R. Sarkar. At the same time Understanding Sarkar provides those who have
studied Sarkar with wonderful new ways of seeing and connecting the vast expanses of his works. We owe
much to Dr. Inayatullah for this splendid effort”.
–Craig Runde, Director of New Program Development, Eckerd College, St.Petersburg, Florida

“In a time when “global” is equated with “western”, Sohail Inayatullah takes us through the door of Indian
thinking to a world view that is global in thetrue sense of the word. Going beyond naive Western idolization
of Asian philosophies and avoiding the pitfalls of dogmatic, sometimes fanatic, adherence to tradition faith
characteristic to many Eastern mentalities Inayatullah examines P.R. Sarkar’s world in pursuit of a
universality that is yet to be realized within the potential of human civilization. Those, wishing freedom
from culturally ingrained mental habits, should consider this work as essential reading”.
–Dr. Partow Izadi, senior scientist in evolutionary futures, global education and systems theory,
University of Lapland, Finland.

“This is a companion volume to Inayatullah and Galtung’s masterly synthesis of macrohistory and
macrohistorians, that includes P R Sarkar. Here the practice as well as the theory of Sarkar enters the
grand sweep, enriching and legitimating the story. Their respective models have elements in common but
few contain all Sarkar’s elements of spiritual practice, humanity, and humility – even if potentially
ferocious. He lived, fought and spread his theory into a movement. Isolated perhaps from the writings of
the other great minds, Sarkar seems to have an uncanny understanding of the emerging insights of genetics
on our social behavior (evolutionary psychology or neo-Darwinism) and of social construction”.
–Alan Fricker, President, Sustainable Futures Trust, Wellington, New Zealand

The purpose of the entire creation is to get and give happiness. Ideally, there is no scope for any disease,
pain and suffering, unless we disobey the laws of nature or ignore the body’s signs of distress. The
fundamental law on which this physical and mental health depends, is a loving friendship between our self,
our habits and our body.

Today’s society is based on exploitation and abuse. There is no harmony amongst people, nor within the
individual, or with the environment. Rather than deeply blissful, human life is often hardship, which we
endure. What we call ‘healthy’ in no way reflects the potential of vitality, joy and gratitude that nature
offers us.

The fundamental task in recovering this sublime health and restoring the natural balance within is to build
a relation of compassion with each and everything, especially with those factors that rekindle the life
forces and which we should consider our real friends.

First among these is our Supreme Friend, the universal Cosmic Entity, on whom the existence of the entire
universe and everything within it depends. In our quest for health we can list seven factors as our
foremost friends.

1. The Power of the Cosmic Entity:
The movement of the entire universe is based upon one single force. The power which makes the planets,
stars and galaxies move in their respective orbits is the same power that exists within a small cell and
directs its varied functions. This is the Cosmic Entity, our Supreme Friend, and harmony with this force
is the principal source of sentient health and infinite happiness.

2. The Power of Positive Mind:
The mind’s abilities and speed are unparalleled. Even the latest computers cannot match the agility, power
and creativity of the mind. But this incredible mental force can work in two directions—positive and
negative. The moment we have a positive state of mind, all the cells and their biochemical processes in the
body also function more positively. The treatment methods we use for our health and happiness may work in
absence of a positive mind, but the result will be limited. In the absence of a positive mind, life will
be full of misery and pain. On the other hand, a positive mind can bring about health and well-being
beyond human imagination.

3. Fresh Air:
Friend of every second, air has to be with us always. If for a few minutes we would be cut off from fresh
air, nothing can save our existence. Just as we learn how to eat by studying nutrition, we must come to
understand the proper use of fresh air to clean our body, make our mind peaceful, and revitalize our whole
system.

4. Sunlight:
The rhythm of the sun is the discipline of our whole existence. If its temperature will start to drop,
existence on this earth will be deeply affected. Our body’s temperature is regulated every day by the
sun’s energy. The sun is the source of all our energy and can cure any imbalance of the body system.
For thousands of years, the sun’s temperature was the only hope for humans to survive the tremendous cold.
The sun is the source for the life giving rains, the greening of the earth, the growing of our food, the
strength of our health.

5. Water:
Water is the friend of every hour, whom we need in many different ways in our body to enrich our own health
and environment.

6. Relaxation:
This is the only time when our body and mind get time to restore themselves. Though we have the physical
strength, we can not work continuously because the body requires periodic rest to cleanse itself.
When we relax our body, it starts to recharge and the mind recovers its strength. Rest lets nature supply
us with energy and work through us. Thus relaxation is very important in maintaining our natural strength.

7. Positive food habits:
Most diseases are caused by eating the wrong foods in the wrong amount and at the wrong time. Controlling
the quality, amount and timing of the food we use, it becomes friendly to our all round health and the
source of our mental peace. At the time of sickness or discomfort, positive food habits can cure and
restore our strength. To deeply understand and live with these basic factors of healthful living is the
fundamental duty of human beings.

No medicine matches the body’s own capacity to revitalize itself. The body’s complexity cannot be imitated
by either science or machine. No medicine has the capacity to understand and fake the body’s own ability
to recharge itself. The fundamental principle of sentient health lies in increasing the body’s own ability
to heal itself. For this, nature has provided a sufficient amount of elements and if we utilize them we will
not only remain free from illness, but also learn to appreciate at depth our divinely inspired life.

Nature cure and Yogic care
Wrong habits cause disease. Most people know that to eat too many sweets is not good, but out of greediness,
in pursuit of a little pleasure, we eat and eat and eat, as long as there are dishes in front of us. By
breaking the natural laws of self-control, we gradually weaken our nervous system, organs and general vitality.

Yogis have long understood that to remedy the excesses of the mind, physical and mental exercises are of vital
importance. These will balance the different inborn psychic tendencies and fundamentally restore and protect
one’s health. Nature cure is not complete without this psycho-physical practice.

Ac. Jyotirishananda Avt. is the author of the book Sentient Health: A Happy and Holy Life Through Water, from
which the article above is an excerpt. Ac Jyotirishananda is an internationally known teacher of yoga and
meditation and has conducted numerous clinics and training courses on various aspects and practices of natural
health. To order this book send an e-mail to : hongkong-sector@amps.org or write to:

Ananda Marga Publications
7, Alley 14, Lane-85\Ding-Jou Road Sec-4
Taipei, Taiwan.

Mind in Nature

For science, viruses represent the smallest collection of molecules recognized as “life.” Maybe in the near future, science will recognize the
sentience of smaller groups. For now, viruses personify the boundary between life and non-life. According to Tantra, however, there is consciousness at every level of evolution. Even stones and crystals are expressions of Spirit or Cosmic Consciousness. While modern science disagree with premodern Tantra about Consciousness in matter, the so-called Santiago theory, developed by
Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana, proposes that awareness is intimately linked to the process of life. Hence, the brain is not necessary for the mind to exist. A worm or a tree has no brain, yet they have a mind. The simplest forms of life, these researchers claim, are capable of perception, maybe even cognition. Native Americans and other indigenous peoples also experience “mind” in nature. But are these animistic beliefs the same as the cognition of Varela and Maturana? In their best seller, The Secret Life of Plants, Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird report that, when killing a tree, tribals would have a heart-to-heart conversation with it. They would let the tree know what would happen, and finally ask forgiveness for this unfortunate act of violence. The authors also documented scientific
experiments on plants with a modified lie detector. The instrument would register when a plant’s leaves were cut or burnt. When a plant “perceived” it was going to be killed, it went into a state of “shock” or “numbness.” This possibly prevented it from undue suffering. Such tests may sound outrageous to materialists, but to the ancient peoples, to Indian yogis and Western mystics, the notion of Consciousness or “mind” in nature is not farfetched. To them, there is Spirit and creative will everywhere–and, to the yogis, in particular, there is in all beings an inherent longing for greater expression. This longing drives evolution forward. Unfortunately, all natural forms cannot express their “suffering” when damaged or destroyed. Therefore, says Indian sage and Tantric philosopher, P. R. Sarkar, we must pay respect to, conserve and properly utilize all natural resources.

Seeing the Other in Me

Poets and sages also observe a deep “grief” in nature. Buddhists
associate this with the wheel of reproduction. If nature’s creations truly
experience pain or grief, at least when killed, our conservation efforts
and our ecological outlook must, in some way, acknowledge this innate
suffering. Thus, nature becomes sacred to us. To paraphrase ecopsychologist
James Hillman, as our mind is enlarged to include nature;
the world becomes us. We feel empathy with the slaughtered cows; we
know that if we destroy the rainforest out of ignorance or greed, we
destroy a part of ourselves.
Are such feelings just mythology and the fantasy of poets? Are they
simply the readings of human emotions into other, lower beings? Or is it
possible to know the natural world–the rose, the lizard, the butterfly–
because these life forms are already part of our inner self?
For philosophers and mystics such as Aristotle, Spinoza, Aurobindo
and Sarkar, the Self and the Other are essentially made of the same
stuff. And since, as Sarkar notes, Consciousness is everywhere, even
in so-called inanimate objects as rocks, sand or mud, we can perceive
Oneness in all creation. In principle, all expressions of nature have an
equal right to exist and to express itself, namely because everything
created is ultimately Cosmic Consciousness.

The Holonic Universe

This sentiment is echoed by Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess,
whose “biospherical egalitarianism” is advocated by the deep-ecology
movement, which he founded. But evolution is irreversible; amoebas
eventually evolve into apes, but apes never transform into amoebas. He
also acknowledges “higher” and “lower” expressions of Consciousness
in nature. In other words, there is an inherent hierarchy in nature. Thus,
it would not be anthropocentric to say that a dog has feelings, nor that a
human and a dog are spiritually One. It would, however, be
anthropocentric to say that a dog has the same psychological depth of
feeling as a human, and thus the same rights.
Ironically, many followers of Naess’ deep-ecology and other earthcentered
ecologists do not acknowledge the higher and lower
expressions of nature. However, for Naess all reality consists of
“subordinated wholes or subordinated gestalts.” All reality, as Arthur
Koestler proposed, is composed of “holons.”
Contemporary mystic and philosopher Ken Wilber first popularized the
concept of holons in his pathbreaking book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.
He explains that atoms and cells, even symbols and ideas, can be
understood as “neither things nor processes, neither as wholes nor
parts, but only as simultaneously whole/parts.” That is, everything is a
holon or a whole that is part of another whole. Reality then, is neither
just parts, as materialistic scientists want us to believe, nor “one
egalitarian, mystic whole,” as many New Agers believe. These notions
are extreme and only partly true.

The Hierarchical Wholeness of Being

In Sarkar’s reconstruction of the traditional Tantra cosmology, one can
distinguish both egalitarian and hierarchical contexts. Evolution, he
says, proceeds from Cosmic Consciousness by creating matter and
then increasingly complex life that can express higher and higher levels
of consciousness.
On this evolutionary ladder animals follow their instinctual dharma, or
inner nature, while humans can rise above their basic instincts and
choose to follow a higher, spiritual dharma.
Within this evolutionary system, there are levels of cooperation, but the
system as a whole is hierarchical. These notions are supported by
systems sciences, which say that wholeness needs hierarchy. Each
hierarchy is composed of increasing orders of wholeness (thus Wilber
calls it “holarchy”). In an evolutionary context, the new stage of
development has extra value relative to the previous stage. An oak
sprout is more complex and therefore endowed with a fuller expression
of consciousness, than an acorn. A monkey has a more evolved
nervous system and mind than an insect, and a human has a more
evolved brain and intellect than an ape.
With potential dire consequences, many earth-centered ecologists
equate hierarchy with the higher exploiting the lower. But the ecological
universe could not exist without hierarchy, and humans, for better or
worse, are stewards of the natural world. Hence, we need to
acknowledge both unity and oneness as well as high and low
expressions of consciousness in our ecological worldview.

Consciousness and Complexity

Humans, unlike animals, can regress to a state of evil and harm both
the human and animal family. How does the holonic theory explain this?
Wilber explains that the more complex a holon is, the more potential for
problems. An atom does not get cancer, a liver or a lung does. An ape
cannot construct an atomic bomb, but a human can.
Because humans are more conscious, we can also express more
complex and more problematic traits. But the cure for our environmental
problems is not to think how humans can become more like animals.
The cure lies in a progressive expansion of our inner potentials.
The cure for any disease–be it physical or mental, in human, animal or
plant–is not to negate the system but to cure or root out the sick holons.
Thus, we kill cancer cells, not the person. We attempt to prevent the
body from becoming cancerous in the first place. It is better to reduce
pollution rather than clean up the environment afterwards.
We need to emulate nature in advancing what Riane Eisler calls
”actualisation hierarchies”. Thus, a self-actualized humanity can
integrate itself with nature, learn to realize our oneness with the “other,”
learn to recognize that being on top of the evolutionary ladder does not
give us the right to rob and exploit those lower than ourselves. Because
of the pathological expressions of hierarchy–such as fascism, Nazism,
communism, or corporate multinationalism–new thinkers are
suggesting a new and supposedly healthier model, or heterarchy,
where rule is established by an egalitarian interplay of all parties.
Atoms may have a heterarchical relationship amongst themselves, but
their relationship to a cell is hierarchical. There is a movement toward
greater complexity and higher consciousness in evolution, while at the
same time there is, on a deeper level, ecological cooperation and
spiritual unity amongst all beings. In other words, there is both
heterarchy and hierarchy.
To simply say that all of us–leaf, tree, monkey, and human–are equal
partners in the great web of life reduces the wondrous complexity of
creation to a lowest common denominator, serving neither nature nor
humans well. There is unity of consciousness amongst all beings,
because we all come from, and are created by, the same Spirit. But
nature is also infinitely diverse, and we need to embrace this variety.
One way this variety is expressed is in terms of depth of
consciousness.
A dog has more capacity for mental expression and self-consciousness
than a fir tree. Both are manifestations of Cosmic Consciousness, both
have mind, and both have equal existential value, but because of the
difference of depth and quality of consciousness, the dog is higher on
the natural hierarchy of being than the fir tree. So when we develop our
ecological ethics, we must value and account for both the “low” and the
”high” expressions of nature. In other words, the answer to all dilemmas
and problems, ethical, medical, or environmental, lies in how we, as
humans, can actualize our divine potentials and use spirituality as a
guiding light for all our worldly actions and interactions.

Cuisine and Consciousness

For Sarkar, nonhuman creatures have the same value to themselves as
human beings have to themselves. Perhaps human beings can
understand the value of their existence, while an earthworm cannot.
Even so, no one has given authority to human beings to kill other
creatures. However, to survive, we cannot avoid killing other beings.
Thus, Sarkar suggests that food should, if possible, be selected from
amongst those beings with a comparatively low development of
consciousness. If vegetables, corn, beans and rice are available, cows
or pigs should not be slaughtered. Secondly, notes Sarkar, before
killing animals we must consider deeply if it is possible to stay healthy
without taking their lives.
Eating plants is therefore preferable to eating animals. As George
Bernard Shaw once said: “Animals are my friends … and I don’t eat my
friends.” It is also ecologically more sustainable to eat lower on the food
chain. Vast land areas used to raise livestock for food could be far more
productive if planted with grains, beans, and other legumes for human
consumption. Only about 10 percent of the protein and calories we feed
to our livestock is recovered in the meat we eat. The other 90 percent
goes literally “down the drain.”
All beings are the children of Mother Earth, but ultimately all of creation
(including Gaia or Mother Earth) is the offspring of Spirit (Wilber) or
Cosmic Consciousness (Sarkar). Sometimes it is difficult to know what
the use of an animal or a plant is; therefore, we may needlessly destroy
ecological balance by killing one species without considering its
complex relationship to other species.
A forest’s value, for example, is more than just X number of board feet
of lumber. It serves as nesting and feeding ground for birds and
animals; its roots and branches protect the soil from erosion; its leaves
or needles produce oxygen; and its pathways and campgrounds
provide nourishment for the human soul. As a whole, the forest
ecosystem has an abundance of ecological, aesthetic, and spiritual
values, which extends far beyond its benefits in the form of toothpicks
or plywood.
If we embrace the Divinity in all of creation, the expression of our
ecological ethics–the way we select our food, the way we treat animals
and plants–may become an inspired and personal act of spirituality.
Unfortunately, this ethics was not widespread when in 1974 I walked
through the slaughterhouse and, at the end, refused to eat the “free hot
dogs”.
While the shadows of McDonald’s golden arches continue to cover the
world, I believe it is important to broadcast the needless slaughter of
cows and the chopping of trees. Indeed, it has become more evident
than ever before how important it is “to live lightly” on the earth. That
means, says Wilber: “it is better to kill a carrot than a cow.” By adhering
to this simple, ethical principle, we can better live in harmony with
ourselves and the Other, with other humans and other beings in the
natural world.

In accordance with the interpretation of a handful of elites, these actions
have been carried out in the name of God.
As Proutists, we see the need to cultivate a new brand of leadership in
society, one not beholden to moneyed interests, dogmatic clerics, or the
hunger for power and domination. The founder of Prout, P.R. Sarkar,
termed such morally inspired leaders and advisors “sadvipras.” Sarkar
believed that sadvipras are needed to ease the transition from old, wornout
and corrupt systems of social organization toward fresh approaches
to political and economic life.
The materialist visions of a communist world order gave way a decade
ago. The mixed economies of India and other countries have failed their
people many times over. We may try yet another version of capitalism,
but why? The tenets of capitalism are out-of-date and, in today’s world,
dangerously egocentric. The collective human psyche is already
moving on, envisioning a more balanced economic system. Grass roots
movements the globe over are promoting a new non-capitalist culture of
coordination and cooperation similar to the Proutist political economy
first outlined by Sarkar almost fifty years ago.
People everywhere are awakening to a life made beautiful by sublime
purposes. Millions are exhausted by the madness of consumerism.
Others are weakened by poverty and despair. As a result, capitalism
faces a serious ideological crisis. Expanding the domain of capitalism
and applying a cosmetic neo-liberal fix may mesmerize a few for a
while. But underlying any appealing mask will lurk the selfish interests
of the cunning few. The desires and conscience of awakened humanity
will not be neglected. New leaders the world over have arisen to lead
humanity toward a more constructive political and economic agenda, an
agenda also reflected in the principles of Prout.

Cavallo and de la Ru’a were all about cow tow-ing to the international finance community, particularly the
IMF. They cut jobs, pensions, and government salaries. After massive protest in the waning days of 2001,
Cavallo and de la Rúa had to resign. Since then [**three] more presidents have resigned.

The current president, President Eduardo Duhalde, has made several moves that “appall Washington’s orthodox
economic policymakers,” says the Washington Post. “Duhalde has blamed the U.S.-backed freemarket approach
for his nation’s troubles and proclaimed it a ‘broken model,’ raising the specter that Latin America’s
third-largest economy may turn away from globalization and spark a movement toward protectionism in a region
where President Bush had hoped to forge a hemisphere-wide free-trade zone,” said the Post in a January article.

In truth, the Argentine economy has been tumbling since 1997. In order to service national debt, public
enterprises were sold to foreign and domestic capitalists, and the new owners fired thousands of workers.
Unprofitable mineral and energy operations were closed, essentially eliminating the economies of entire
towns. Public workers were laid off or just not paid. Education, health care and other social services were
cut way back. Ironically, but not unsurprisingly, the Argentine bourgeoisie moved billions out of the country
following the crash that followed rampant foreign investment in the country. By 2001, unemployment surpassed
50 percent in some parts of the country, and the majority of households fell into poverty.

Clearly, the neoliberal model of globalization, that requires countries to maintain high international credit
ratings no matter what the domestic expense, was not working. It seems that Cavello and de la Rua had
bought in to a paradigm that the people of Argentina now know is flawed: that by allowing capitalist elites
to get rich off Argentina, Argentina also would benefit; that the deluge of capital into the country would
float all boats; that the profit potential of investors must always come before the needs of common people.

In the Barrio’s, the unemployed had had enough, both with austerity programs designed to appease the IMF,
and with party bosses and union bureaucrats who had done nothing to change their plight. The Unemployed
Workers Movement (MTD) started as a grass roots movement in the urban and suburban barrios. The
organization has a horizontal structure: the assembly makes decisions, and even negotiations with the
government takes place in front of assemblies. The MTD began organizing roadblocks in 2001 to have their
voices heard. Thousands of men, women, and children participated. The blockades had great popular support,
making it difficult for the gendarmes to arrest their leaders. The government had to negotiate.

The MTD demanded locally administered state-funded jobs, food relief, the freeing of political prisoners,
and investments in roads, water, and health facilities. The MTD didn’t want temporary jobs, but stable
employment at living wages. In General Mosconi, for example, the leaders of the MTD movement came up with
over three hundred project ideas, some of which have been implemented. These include a bakery, organic
gardens, water purifying plants, first aid clinics, and more.

The local unemployment committee in fact runs this town. In some suburbs, the unemployed movement also has
displaced the local government, setting up a parallel economy and offering a vision to the nation of the
capabilities of the unemployed to take command of their own destinies.

Interestingly, while the IMF–essentially an agent of U.S. capital–required Argentina to give up
sovereignty on fiscal matters, the US government itself is at this moment exercising the right to deficit
spending. George Bush sites the recession as justification for giving a Keynesian boost to our economy,
but when Argentina was in much worst economic straits, it was Washington’s position that budgets must
be balanced, never mind that unemployment was through the roof and Argentines and the domestic Argentine
economy were starving for lack of domestic spending. How does the U.S. government expect the Argentine
middle class to react to this kind of hypocrisy? One of the causes of economic depression and recessions in
capitalist economies is the reduction of the money flow due to its concentration in the hands of a few.
Since the majority under such circumsance has no purchasing capacity, the syndrome is self re-enforcing:
the rich have no incentive to invest in an economy that promises no returns. This clearly happened in
Argentina, which witnessed not only the flight of foreign capital, but also the withdrawal of billions of
dollars from the country by the Argentine bourgeoisie. Now common Argentineans can’t even get back the money
they’ve deposited in banks.

Argentine Proutists have responded to the situation with proposals of their own. Perhaps now more than ever,
disenfranchised Argentines are willing listen.

David Griffin is a freelance writer from Minneapolis, Minnesota, a copyeditor, and a member of the
Prout Journal editorial board.

References:
James, Petras, The Unemployed Workers Movement in Argentina, Monthly Review, 2002