The interesting thing is that most people didn’t feel as horrible, depressed or anxious as you would expect.
When we could not afford the yogurt, my mother and myself could not help but laugh. Running to the market
became some sort of national sport. Women “competed” to find out exactly how many liters of juice could be
made from one orange (I still have a recipe which makes four to five). But at that time we could laugh,
because we felt that our poverty was temporary. We still had other assets, apart from our income, that we
could use. We could still envision a better future. And for some reason, we stopped comparing ourselves with
“the West,” as we did in the previous years of relative affluence (a comparison which would give us the sense
of inadequacy, apprehension and inferiority). We looked around us and concluded that most people were in the
same boat, and, compared to many others, we were still quite fortunate.

My first thought in coming to Australia was that this country would collapse under sanctions. At that time,
petrol in Yugoslavia could be found only sporadically but people of Novi Sad could walk to most places,
drive bicycles or easily organise car polling. Other strategies included waiting in queues for days and
taking turns to do so, borrowing cars from family and friends that spend less gas, smuggling petrol over
the border and buying at the black market. The joke at the time was that while a western European earns
3,000 spends 2,500 and saves 500 DEM, the average Yugoslav person earns 30 but spends 3,000 DEM a month.
While probably serving to boost everyone’s morale, this joke, as well as the previous petrol and juice
examples, help make a few important points.

First, it is to move from a situation of relative affluence to a situation of poverty. This has happened
to millions of people in Eastern Europe, over a relatively short period of time. For example, using the
cost of a basket of basic goods as a measure of poverty, the figures show that child poverty in Russia
has now reached 98 per cent (Bradbury and Jantti, 1999)! Throughout history, this has not only happened
to the members of the middle class, like myself, but to the members of the financial and social elite as
well, and not only in Eastern Europe. Empires fell, the economic system collapsed, wars occurred, family,
age and work situations changed, and so on. Because of what I saw in my life and learned from glimpses
into history, I believe that no one is safe from poverty. And, if we factor in environmental degradation
as an indicator of overall quality of life, we all might already be poor, without even knowing it.
Therefore, addressing and resolving poverty is everyone’s business, and should be everyone’s priority.

Second, people who find themselves in situations of poverty use multiple strategies to alleviate their
condition. The poorer they are the more elaborate and ingenious their strategies for survival are. At
the same time, it is often thought that the poor are totally powerless to change their situation and that
their only hope is to be passive recipients of aid. Because of this, strategies that today’s poor use or
have used before to maintain their societies are rarely considered in poverty elevation measures. In
Australia, for example, Aborigines stress the importance of the land at all levels as necessary in
addressing their current disadvantage. However, the government’s reply to Aboriginal poverty is almost
entirely through welfare statemeasures which primarily focus on financial transaction (welfare handouts).
This reply is a product of the Western, materialistic and industrialised society. It fails to address
the issue of importance of traditional natural and cultural assets as well as the importance of spiritual
progress and wellbeing along material welfare. Another example is the 1994 boycott of products produced
by child labour, led mostly by the USA, which resulted in 50,000 Bangladeshi children losing their jobs,
and as a result many of them then turned to begging and prostitution (Bjonnes, 2001). While the boycott
had good intentions it was one more case “of Westerners selectively applying universal principles to a
situation they did not understand” (Marcus quoted in Bjonnes, 2001). It is depressing that more strategies
for alleviation of poverty have failed rather then succeeded. In addition, some have directly contributed
to an increase in poverty. For example, development policies in the Third World have made many people
landless and/or destroyed their environmental assets, as well as their social cohesion and traditional
economy. This has not only contributed to the increase in their poverty but has sometimes been the single
biggest factor that created it in the first place. Still, just because poverty alleviation measures have
not been successful in the past does not mean that the problem of poverty is such that it cannot be
resolved. This, however, requires tapping into the experiences and strategies developed by those who
experience poverty on daily basis.

Third, and related to the previous perception that the poor are powerless, is the conviction that the
poor have no future since their predicament will only get worse (S P Udayakumar,1995:339). For
example, a 1995 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute concluded that poor countries
that now suffer widespread malnutrition and a general lack of food security can look forward to little
improvement in the foreseeable future (Gately, 2001). Another study (Hanmer et al, 2001) concluded
that Sub-Saharan Africa will not be able to meet the international development targets – halving of the
extreme poverty by 2015- in any likely future scenario. While such forecasting and trend analysis is
powerful and might be accurate, it does little when it comes to envisioning alternative futures and
motivating people to work toward social change.

Fourth, poverty is a complex, multidimensional issue which cannot be understood only in terms of
economic indicators, such as GNP or per capita income. Access to other assets such as community
support, infrastructure and knowledge base play an equally if not a more important role. This is why
poverty alleviation strategies in the future need to be based on the reconceptualized understanding of
poverty, if they are to be successful. This includes understanding that there are poverties not poverty,
that these poverties are processes, not states and that prevention rather then relief is crucial
(Walker and Park, 1998:47).

Fifth, poverty needs to be defined from the perspective of the poor. For example, one study shows that
poor rarely speak of income but rather focus on their ability to manage physical, human, social and
environmental assets (Narayan, 2000:5). This means asking the poor how they define and see their living
and working conditions and which areas do they believe need to be transformed.

Sixth, poverty is a cumulative process. The longer it goes on the more difficult it is to uproot it.
And while the common understanding is that the poor somehow get accustomed to the situation, in fact,
the longer poverty goes on the more difficult it is to bear it. People who find themselves temporarily
poor might respond to that situation with dignity, humour and resourcefulness. But sooner or later
other feelings such as shame, humiliation and despair set in and the opportunities and assets for
ingenuity decrease. That the poor do not get accustomed to the situations of poverty can be easily seen
from the higher level of poor health and illness among poor as well as from their higher mortality rates.
Around 500,000 women die yearly from pregnancy and birth related complications which are usually related
to a lack of proper nutrition and adequate health services. Almost 2 million children will die this year
because of poverty. And it is estimated that around 30 million people die each year from hunger.

These are only some of the important factors that need to be considered if we are to eradicate poverty.
The literature on poverty is huge, including both the economy oriented studies as well as critical and
alternative approaches. In order to summarise what I see to be crucial issues in regard to poverty
eradication, I use the Causal Layered Analysis methodological approach, developed by Inayatullah (1998).
This approach offers deconstruction, reorders the knowledge and seeks to find the root causes of social
diseases (Fricker, 2000). It implies that there are different levels of reality and different ways of
knowing. Consequently this requires different levels of analysis and understanding of various realms for
implementation of social and individual transformations. Causal Layered Analysis has four levels: the
litany, social causes, discourse/worldviews and myths/metaphor. The litany focuses on quantitative trends
and problems which are often exaggerated and used for political purposes. At the level of social causes,
interpretation is given to the quantitative data. The third level is concerned with structure and the
discourse/worldview that supports and legitimates it. At the fourth level analysis looks for the deep
stories, the collective archetypes, subconscious dimension of the issue under inquiry. Causal Layered
Analysis does not privilege a particular level but attempts to integrate discourses, ways of knowing and
worldviews as well as create transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures
(Inayatullah, 1998:815-829).

Litany
At the litany level poverty is measured only through economic and other quantitative indicators. The
discourse tends to focus on the overwhelming nature of global poverty, for example, estimates that
currently 53% of the world population is classified as poor and that around 3 billion people live on
less then 2US$ a day. The number of people in poverty is represented as a matter of fact and causes
are rarely explored. In the Western media, poverty is usually constructed to be “out there”, among
“the Others” and rarely “here”. The common results of poverty, such as high fertility rates, low literacy
levels, political arrest, organised crime and scarcity of resources are often presented as its main
causes. For example, in the mainstream discourse on poverty there is a huge concern about overpopulation.
It is often stressed that world population is expected to increase from 6 billion, as it is today, to
7.2 billion in 2015, and somewhere between 7.7 and 11.2 billion in year 2050. As 95% of this increase is
projected to occur in the countries with currently have high proportion of the poor, it is implicit that
the poor themselves are “guilty” of creating a future of poverty.

At this level, the strategies for elevation of poverty mostly focus on the poverty relief and aid
packages. The common response among the affluent is either apathy – the problem of poverty is so huge
that it cannot be resolved; helplessness – I wish there is something I/we could do; or projected action
- the government, UN or NGO’s should do something!

Sometimes, magical solutions, such as genetically modified rice and other crops, are also discussed.

Social causes
At the level of social causes analysis, economic, cultural, political and historical factors are
discussed. Social causes analysis is most commonly found among policy planners and academics. At this
level, processes such as colonization, modernization, globalization, capitalism, urbanisation, as well
as national and international governance are discussed. Other indicators of poverty, such as access
to education, health care, are included but poverty is still primarily measured through economic
indicators, such as GNP and income per capita.

Strategies usually include suggestions on how to increase economic growth rate or labour productivity
and how to encourage foreign investment. Other suggested strategies include investments in agricultural
research, education, health, creation of welfare safety net and so on.

Worldview/discourse
At the worldview discourse, the main debate is whether economy needs to be regulated. Libertarians and
conservatives argue against any or against any significant interference into the free-market economy,
and maintain that poverty can only be elevated through the free flow of capital and labour. Some also
argue that the widening gap between the rich and the poor is “a natural, necessary and even desirable
component and hallmark of the improvement of the human condition” (www.libertarians.org). That is,
poverty is the normal condition of men and if the rich were not allowed to get ever richer the poor
would never have any chance to improve their conditions at all. This they could do through ever-
increasing access to tools of everincreasing productivity, through acquiring advanced technology and by
“jumping on the bandwagon” of the general development and economic growth that entrepreneurs create
(www.libertarians.org). Left-liberals, environmentalists and socialists argue that the global Casino
capitalism is directly complicit in creation of poverty where previously there was none as well as that
the unregulated, “free” economy/markets is a myth. They stress that poverty is not created through
production (or the lack of it) but because of the way profits are distributed. They argue that although
global economic activity has grown at nearly 3% each year and doubled in size twice over the past
50 years the number of people living in absolute poverty hadn’t been reduced at the same pace. In regard
to the widening gap between rich and poor they argue that this indeed is a problem because in the future
world where “two-thirds are poor and deprived of basics and promise, there will not be any peace and
security” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Contrary to the focus only on the competitive aspects of the human
nature it is the cooperation that is seen as the only possible way out. The future is seen as a
collaborative enterprise in which “well-being of the poor demands on the cooperation of the rich, and
the safety of the rich relies on justice for the poor” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Discussions on this level
also allow for an analysis of the ways in which the discourses themselves not only mediate issues but
also constitute them. Or how discourses we use to understand poverty directly influence strategies that
are being put in place. For example, if poverty is understood predominantly in terms of economic
indicators, only economic measures are going to be suggested. The strategies will therefore not include
measures that work against oppressive social structures that are complicit in creation and sustenance
of poverty, such as, patriarchy, for example.

Myth/metaphor
At the myth/metaphor level deeper cultural stories are discussed. For example, in which ways Western
advertisement or other propaganda makes indigenous populations believe that their own culture, dress,
food, or language are inferior as well as how needs for products and lifestyles produced elsewhere
are created (Bjonnes, 2001). Or, through local and global narratives, creating a situation in which
some become easy prey for economic exploitation by others. At this level, we can see how deep beliefs,
such as the belief that humans are inherently competitive and selfish, create a worldview that informs
discussions that formulate policies that determine the actions (or the lack of it). Or how these actions
and policies differ from those that are formed by the worldview that emphasizes the role of
communication, cooperation, altruism, caring and nurturing as the main themes in human evolution.
At this level we can also investigate deep cultural myths and their relevance for poverty creation and
elevation. For example, in the Western history two basic narratives about the relationship between men
and nature exist (Hollis, 1998). One is the myth of “The Land of Cockaygne”, the land of milk and honey,
the “golden age” where the nature provides abundant resources and the magic bowl of porridge never
empties. This is the land of unlimited consumption, limitless choices, and ever increasing growth and
progress. The current version is consumer based global capitalism where new wealth and products are
constantly being created. This is being done both through technological and economic innovations as well
as through the colonisation of nature, lands, peoples, and space. Another myth is that of Arcadia, where
nature is bountiful but humans do not indulge themselves beyond their needs (Hollis, 1998). It is the
idea and the image about the harmony between humanity and nature rather then the image of domination and
control of the nature by humanity so as to produce society and civilisation. Throughout European history,
the Land of Cockaygne was especially popular during medieval ages and among lower classes which sought to
relieve the drudgery of their everyday lives “through the pure satisfaction of sensual pleasures”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Arcadia, on the other hand, originated in ancient Greece and was revived by Renaissance
humanists that were “seeking to restrain the selfish tendencies of the rich and powerful classes”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Its modern version are today’s ecological, New-Age and anti-globalisation movements.

Conclusion
Poverty is not a necessary evil but the result of how we perceive the world and act within it. Poverty is
continuing because the poor are truly silenced, that is, alternatives that incorporate local knowledge,
experiences, desires and worldviews of the poor are invisible in the mainstream discourses. Writing and
reading about poverty is a luxury in itself, a luxury that is beyond the means of the poor. In addition,
the official discourse rarely allows for a discussion about the ways in which we, the affluent of the
world, are complicit in creation and perpetuation of poverty. Or in which ways spiritual poverty -“a
psychological state, generally among the affluent, expressed as a constant hunger for more material things;
a sense of alienation, loneliness, and spiritual emptiness” (Bjoness, 2001) – is complicit in creating
poverty.

But the main problem with mainstream discourse, as well as both the “left” and the “right” worldviews, is
that poverty is described in terms that it becomes unthinkable to imagine poverty-free futures. Together
with the focus on the overwhelming nature of current poverty this lack of imagination makes us powerless
to act today, one step at the time. But for this to happen, we do not need to travel far and wide, nor do
we need to carry with us the influence of political power and huge wealth. We can address destitution
amongst ourselves, listen to those amongst us who are not allowed to speak, and help them carry their
imagination into a poverty-free future. A future in which every person will have an easy access to at least
one delicious yogurt a day.

Ivana Milojevic is currently completing her doctorate at the School of Education, The University of
Queensland. Born and raised in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, she now resides in Mooloolaba, Australia. Some of her
other articles are available at www.metafuture.com You can email her at: ivanam@mailbox.uq.edu.au

71, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence. Fricker, A. (2000).
“Poverty Amidst Plenty: a role for Causal Layered Analysis”, paper presented at DEVNET Conference on
Poverty, Prosperity, Progress, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2000.

Gately, D. (1995). “Comprehensive Projections Model Predicts Future Hunger Hot Spots”
(reports on the study released by the International Food Policy Research Institute on malnutrition
and lack of food security), www.ifpri.cgiar.org Hanmer, L. (2000). “Will Growth Halve Global Poverty
by 2015?”, www.odi.org.uk

Hollis, D. W. (1998). The ABC-CLIO World History Companion to Utopian Movements. ABC-CLIO,
Santa Barbara, CA.

Inayatullah, S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis.” Futures 30(8): 815-829.
Narayan, D. (2000). Can Anyone Hear Us?, Published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank,
Oxford.

Udayakumar, S.P. (1995). “The futures of the poor.” Futures 27(3): 339-353.
Walker, R. and Park, J.(1998). “Unpicking poverty”, in C. Oppenheim,
An Inclusive Society: Strategies for Tackling Poverty, Institute for Public
Policy, London.

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

Namaskar is a traditional yogic greeting that means, “I greet the divinity within you with all the charms of my mind and the cordiality of my heart.”
We are divine beings, each one of us. We have, in addition to physical and mental qualities, spiritual qualities. Our journey, as individuals and as members of a global community struggling against economic globalization and injustice, is two-fold. It is personal, and it is collective.

Capitalism teaches the superiority of the individual: “I win, you lose.” Or, “I win and it really doesn’t matter what happens to the rest of the world.” What are the lessons we teach our children in school? “Get a good education, then get a good job and make some money.” Western education offers no clear message of social responsibility. We have responsibilities to others as well as individual rights.

Compassion is the most important quality for a spiritualist to have. We need to feel compassion for others and to serve those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

So our journey is both external and internal. Just as we learn from all our personal experiences, so we also learn from the collective struggle for social justice.

I teach prisoners, as Father Jim Consedine does [another speaker at the conference]. I teach them meditation and yoga every week, and personally I find it very gratifying, because they are in a process of transformation. I am inspired by the example that my spiritual master, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar <../../sarkar/default.htm>, gave when the first person he chose to teach meditation to was an infamous criminal in Calcutta who later became a great saint and spiritual visionary. So I think, “If that was the person who he felt was most worthy of spiritual transformation, then who am I to judge the spiritual potential of others?”

We are all brothers and sisters. When I was a child, I often used to fight with my brother and sister, but of course we remained family. In the same way, human beings have lots of differences, and I’m going to fight and struggle against injustice. But I always want to remember that I’m fighting and struggling against the bad actions that people do and not against who they are. Because they are, forever, my brothers and sisters, too.

I accept a universal definition of God: that which is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. For some, this may seem a rather standard dictionary definition of the Supreme Being. But I think the definition is very revolutionary. If He is everywhere, then that means He is right inside me and He is right inside you and He is right inside our planet earth.

God is both He and She. I use the male pronoun unnecessarily, because I have trouble calling the One I feel so close to an “It”. Both the masculine and the feminine are equally present in that Supreme Being — it is we who are limited by our concepts of male and female.
If that Being is here in me and here in you, then that means I have to act accordingly, I have to work accordingly. I cannot be a spiritual capitalist, one who says, “I’m going to go to a nice monastery, to a beautiful forest retreat, to the mountains, I’m only going to do my spiritual journey.” That’s capitalism. That’s selfishness.

In my opinion, spirituality is everywhere. In some places, of course, you will feel more spiritual energy. But you don’t have to go on a pilgrimage to any place, because if you close your eyes, wherever you are, you can find all that you seek. So that inner journey is more important than any pilgrimage. Yes, I like to go to the mountains sometimes, to the forests, I love nature, and clearly there is more spiritual energy in some places, such as this beautiful Maori center. But that’s relative. We shouldn’t stop our progress because we’re not in a spiritual place. I’ll meditate four times a day wherever I am.

Consumerism and materialism is what our current society teaches us. It goes like this: “Buy a new pair of Nike tennis shoes and you’ll be happy. Buy a new car and you’ll be happy.” (You’ll probably get a woman with the car, because most advertisements have a beautiful woman next to the car, so obviously you’re going to get that, too!)

That’s a lie. These capitalist lies are what we have to stop, because they are destroying human minds, convincing people that money is the secret to happiness. Television, film, radio, magazines all get money from advertisers to spread these lies. When our minds become clear and strong in meditation, in spiritual practices, then we can begin to see through the veil of lies and legitimacy. Happiness doesn’t come from any material thing; it comes from your own heart. That’s a fundamental truth.

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar <../../sarkar/default.htm>, the founder of Prout <../5fpp/5fpp.htm>, was both a great spiritual master and also a revolutionary. I first met him in January 1978 in a prison cell in India where he was a political prisoner for seven years. After his release, the US, UK, Australia and some other rich countries refused to give him a visa because they said he was a dangerous revolutionary.

In August 1979, he came to Bangkok, Thailand where I was working. I had the wonderful opportunity to spend seven days with him. One very dark night, what I would call a very “Tantric” night, three of us went with him on a walk in a park. At one point he stopped and explained why the dictator President Ferdinand Marcos had just deported him from the Philippines:

“ They say I am a dangerous man. But I am not a dangerous man; I am not a strong man. Imagine, they are scared of me, and I am only five feet two inches tall!
“ You know how a fish store smells? Ugh! Yet some people like that ‘fishy’ smell. Only those who like the ‘fishy’ smell of selfishness are afraid of me. Selfishness is a mental disease and they know that Prout gives no scope for selfishness.”

We are trying to create a world that limits the expression of that particular mental disease. I used to work in a psychiatric hospital, and I have friends with all kinds of mental diseases. They need a certain kind of care. But we must not allow people with the mental disease of selfishness to run our economies and our countries, to dictate the world that our children can have.

As spiritualists, we have to unite. We have to unite with other spiritualists, like these great people beside me. We have to unite with people of all expressions and beliefs and faiths. I believe the only “ism” that we can support is universalism, the idea that we are one human family. You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but we are all moving in the same direction. If we climb a mountain, it doesn’t matter from which side of the mountain you start your climb; we’re all going to reach the summit together.

I believe that spiritual practices are fundamental to the spiritual path. They are what you actually do to get there, whether they take the form of some kind of meditation or some kind of deep personal inner reflection. It is gratifying to work for an organization that teaches meditation free of charge. Whatever type of meditation we do, our goal is to become better people. An ideal human being, a saint-like person, a God-like person – who cares what their faith is, who cares whether they are Muslim or Jew or Catholic or Protestant or a yogi? When we become ideal human beings, then we’ll all be one.

To unite the moralists, to unite those people who are fighting against injustice, against exploitation, is our goal. Our spiritual practices, our spiritual vision, our spiritual love and compassion are fundamental to get there. They are our strength, our inner sustenance.

Logically, if we look at the world, global ecological destruction is a very real possibility. Spiritually, though, I know we’re going to make it. P. R. Sarkar said, “Your future is bright. It is brighter than gold, it is brighter than platinum, it is brighter than anything you can ever imagine. And you’ll see it with your own eyes.”

How will it happen? I don’t know. And whether it happens this year, or next year, or later, I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing now: fighting for social justice, working against capitalist exploitation, doing my spiritual practices and encouraging everyone else in this human family to learn and try them, too. Because we need inner peace and we need global peace. Without one, we have an angry world. Without the other, we have people dying completely unnecessarily. That’s a crime. That’s totally unacceptable. Humanity is bleeding. We must awaken. We must work together. We must make a better world. We don’t have another option.

The current global political and economic climate is imbalanced and unstable. Western democracies, while philosophically guided by the principles of modernism (equality, fraternity, and liberty) are often not emphasizing the same principles when global economic policies are drafted.

More precisely, the globalization forces promote political democracy while often using undemocratic means when dictating economic policies. Driven by the profit-hungry forces of neo-liberalism, or economic globalization, policies set in the West–through institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)–have often bypassed local democratic institutions and proven to be economically counterproductive and devastating to the so-called developing nations. “Theirs is not an ideology of freedom and democracy,” writes William Finnegan in Harper’s magazine. “It is a system of control. It is an economics of empire.”

Even in countries with a tradition of political democracy, such as in South East Asia, and in South America, the neo-liberal policies have often been economically disastrous. Argentina, for example–for a long time the poster-child of economic globalization–is today suffering the worst economic crisis in its history. In short, economic democracy is still a far cry for most developing nations. Indeed, economic democracy is also only a dream for millions of poor in the rich Western nations.

As PROUT founder P. R. Sarkar writes, economic democracy is the “birthright of every individual.” To achieve economic democracy–or what author and PROUT activist Dada Maheshvarananda calls “a dynamic economy of the people, by the people and for the people”– economic power must be vested in the hands of local people, not foreign corporate interests.

The Fist of Free Trade

Economic liberalization has now reached all corners of the world, but has yet to take hold in the Middle East. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, President George Bush drew several rather surprising links between the need for free trade liberalizations and a “free Iraq.” Here is a quote from a National Press Conference:

” I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That society — free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq. Secondly, I’ve seen all kinds of protests since I’ve been the President. I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people didn’t feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. But that didn’t change my opinion about trade. As a matter of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out. ”

No surprise then that free trade and the messianic vision of market fundamentalism was an important part of The National Security Strategy of the United States, issued by the White House in September 2002. “We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world,” the Strategy claims. “The possibility that the Marines and high altitude bombers might need to be involved in spreading the good news about free trade does not, in context, seem far-fetched,” writes Finnegan.

No, it does not seem far-fetched. As New York Times columnist and economic globalization advocate Tom Friedman wrote in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree:

“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas… And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.”

In other words, the war against Iraq was more about fostering the freedom to make a profit on hamburgers than about finding WMD’s. It was more about McWorld vs. Jihad than it was about Bush vs. Saddam.

Free trade and corporate globalization–whichever way it is implemented–has not, however, been a boon for the world’s developing countries. While the US and Europe has increased its wealth, most people in developing nations have become poorer. Indeed, even the IMF recently reported that their policies have failed in lifting these countries out of poverty. Even in the US, globalization has had negative effects on peoples income. Real wages have fallen 4 percent since 1973, while economic growth has averaged 3 percent. In contrast, during the decades prior to globalization–between 1947 and 1973–economic growth averaged 4 percent and wages increased by 63 percent. So, why should Iraq celebrate a future designed by the warriors and free traders in Washington?

Now that the high altitude bombers have finished their work in Iraq, and the US promises the “liberated” Iraqi people that they will soon bask in the glory of democracy, this promise does of course not include the promise of economic democracy. For free market fundamentalism and real-life economic democracy are not mutually inclusive. Just ask the people of Bolivia. Although rich in natural resources, it is the poorest country in South America. Why? Most of the resources are utilized by foreign corporations. “The World Bank is the government of Bolivia,” a Bolivian newspaper editor claims. So, how can the US promise Iraq what the Washington strategists cannot even provide millions of its own citizens, not to speak of the impoverished people in the third world?

A “free Iraq” must therefore not only mean the political freedom to vote, but also freedom from poverty, and the freedom to choose the path of economic self-sufficiency. A truly liberated people should be able to exercise both political and economic democracy. Most of all they should feel secure that no foreign economic power can dictate their economic future–that they are not victims of the “dictatorship” of foreign economic powers.

There are many stated and unstated reasons behind the US-led coalition’s war against Iraq. Most of those reasons–to protect US national self-interest, to prevent future attacks by Iraq and other terrorists, to stop the proliferation of the not-yet-proven Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to ensure US geopolitical control of the Middle East, and to ensure trade liberalization in the region–do not meet the high moral aim of simply liberating the Iraqi people from an unjust tyranny.

The economic sanctions will soon be lifted so that Iraq, and thus the whole Middle East, can open up for the commercial and cultural hegemony of Western corporations. Aid will also be flowing in. And with this aid, for the hungry and painful bodies of Iraq, will also come aid for their souls. The Messianic message of Billy Graham, his son, and many other Christian evangelical preachers will soon be heard all over the dusty towns of this ancient, Muslim country. For, as there is a holy alliance between McDonald’s and McDonnel Douglas, there is also a holy alliance between US-born capitalism and Born Again Christians, between fundamentalist Christendom and fundamentalist economics.

World Government and Economic Democracy

Unfortunately, we have a UN without a spine and a global economic system without a soul. What we need instead is a World Government with a militia, and a global economic system that fosters economic democracy, or people’s democracy.

As the civilizational and economic conflict between the North and the South, between the rich and the poor, increases, there will be a growing need for both a World Government and for economic democracy. The people of the world will soon be tired of the US operating as the World’s Cop. There will thus be demands for a world authority governing from a higher moral ground than both the UN and, especially, the US is currently operating on. In the words of philosopher Ken Wilber:

” My own belief is that, in the coming century, we will see the present United Nations peacefully replaced by the first move toward a genuine World Federation, driven particularly by threats to the global commons that cannot be handled on a national level (such as terrorism, global monetary and economic policy, and environmental threats to the global commons).”
” This would mean, for example,” writes Wilber, “that America is allowed to despise Iraq (in the privacy of its own…national, cultural space). America is not, however, allowed to attack Iraq.”

What are some of the benefits of a World Federation or World Government? Sarkar suggests four main benefits:

1. The huge expenses of maintaining a militia in each country will be reduced, and these savings can be used to benefit people’s needs.

2. There will be a great reduction in psychological tension.

3. There will be less bloodshed.

4. There will be free movement of people from one corner of the globe to the other.

While Wilber has been primarily preoccupied with blueprinting the cultural and political landscape fostering a more benign world, Sarkar has also mapped its economic aspects. Sarkar believed that political democracy cannot fulfill all “the hopes and aspirations of people or provide the basis for constructing a strong and healthy human society. For this the only solution is to establish economic democracy.”

According to Sarkar, the following guidelines are needed to establish economic democracy:

–The minimum requirements of life must be guaranteed to all. The minimum requirements of a particular age — including food, clothing, housing, education and medical care — should be guaranteed to all.

–Increasing purchasing power must be guaranteed to each and every individual.

–Local people will control economic power, consequently local raw materials will be used to promote the economic prosperity of the local people. This will create industries based on locally available raw materials and ensure full employment for all local people.

–Outsiders must be strictly prevented from interfering in the local economy. The outflow of local capital must be stopped by strictly preventing outsiders or a floating population from participating in any type of economic activity in the local area.”

Paul Hawken, an author whose writings and talks envisions a world of economic democracy, cultural vitality and ecological sustainability, was recently asked by a journalist: “Aren’t you just dreaming?” He replied: “Absolutely I’m dreaming; somebody’s got to dream in America.” Indeed, somebody’s got to dream of a better future, and not just in America, in all countries of the world.

So, in the spirit of Paul Hawken, Ken Wilber and P. R. Sarkar, let us all dream. Let us all dream of a better future for Iraq, and a better future for the world.