Though not the same as Prout since it relies on the capitalist mode of production, the once-vaunted Swedish model of socioeconomic development was closest to Prout, as stated by Prout founder Shrii P.R. Sarkar. The importation of large numbers of immigrants will most likely undermine the Swedish model, however, and signs of it cracking are already evident, especially as this system cannot sustain immigration along with 20+ percent unemployment. As long as it co-exists with capitalism, rather than importing immigrants Sweden should aggressively export its socioeconomic model - absent the dehumanizing program of Stalinist-style thought control [please see Jihad and the Collapse of the Swedish Model, recently linked to on our website, -eds.] - to nations that need it, solve its unemployment problem, and restore some pride to its people. Only small numbers of immigrants among the billions who need help can come to the country; imagining that mass immigration is a sane program is the fantasy of fools. If Swedes want to help Muslims, a large portion of their immigrants, a better place to start would be speaking out against American neocon aggression in the Middle East and helping fund refugee camps there.
Multiculturalism, of which promotion of mass immigration is a part, is a bogus philosophy, a Trojan horse, a viral infection on the intellectual level. It is intended to tear down, not build up. It is also based in part on the "American model," which has deep roots in the appropriation of formerly native American Indian lands and in the import of cheap immigrant labor, undermining the working class, antitheses of what Sweden has stood for. The Swedish people would be well advised to shake off this disease and believe in themselves once again. They also need to do the hard work of thinking for themselves rather than let the State think for them. After all, it was they who created what used to be the ideal for harnessing the brute forces of capitalism to suit human needs and nurture human development. Those internationalist politicians who are undermining Sweden in turn should be thrown in the garbage bag where they belong, the top closed shut, and tossed away, to be forgotten like rotten food. Only then can the politics of unrestrained economic internationalism, that other force undermining the Swedish people, be faced.
Posted by proutist-universal on July 19, 2007 2:10 AMI would like to know what do you mean by the term "progressive"?
Posted by: Dr. Ratna Andayani on July 25, 2007 11:40 AMDear Dr. Ratna Andayani,
Thank you for your inquiry and sorry for the delayed reply. We are quite busy and overlooked your posting.
The subject of what is "progressive" when taken philosophically is of course quite deep and would require a lot of space. Briefly, however, Prout looks at it in two ways: spiritually and socioeconomically. Spiritually, progress is movement towards the Supreme Consciousness, or spiritual development. This may be the only true progress, since in the relative world there are reactions to actions as well as limitations on action due to the nature of matter and the sometimes-divergent interests of other people. Socioeconomically, perhaps the best answer to your question is found in Prout's formal principles. They can be found at http://www.proutist-universal.org/archives/000711.html#more with corresponding discussions, though the five fundamental principles are included below. The briefest way of summarizing Prout's concept of socioeconomic progress I believe is as increasing wealth for all. This includes wealth of all kinds - material, intellectual, and spiritual - and I would suggest that this concept of progress includes acceleration in the rates of increase of these forms of wealth as well. Indirectly, an increase in morality is also considered progress, through its concept of leadership (the "sadvipra" concept) and its proposed requirements for a better-functioning democracy and for cooperatives, which are a key component of the economic system Prout promotes.
As I mentioned, this is not a subject that can be dealt with satisfactorily in one letter unless you want only a simple reply. I do think that the link I provided can tell you more, and hope you will take a look at that. Thanks again for asking.
Sincerely,
Brian Hammer
contributing editor
PROUT's five fundamental principles: (1) No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth without the clear permission or approval of the collective body. (2) There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of all mundane, supra-mundane and spiritual potentialities of the universe. (3) There should be maximum utilization of the physical, metaphysical and spiritual potentialities of the unit and collective bodies of human society. (4) There should be a proper adjustment amongst these physical, metaphysical, mundane, supra-mundane and spiritual utilizations. (5) The method of utilization should vary in accordance with the changes in time, space and person, and the utilization should be of a progressive nature.
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |