Welcome to episode three of Prout Consciousness and its appraisal of Prout’s cooperative sector.
Cooperatives, or coops, are the heartbeat of Prout’s localized economic system. As far as form and functioning goes coops are fairly straight-forward entities. The International Cooperative Alliance, ICA, defines a coop as a self-governing association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. In terms of business, coops have come a long way from more than 250 years ago when members of a local weavers’ society in Fenwick, Scotland began selling the contents of a sack of oatmeal at a discount. Today, coops provide jobs or work opportunities to 10% of the world’s employees, that is 280 million people, while close to a billion people, more than 12% of humanity, are part of any of the world’s 3 million coops.
Prout establishes the cooperative sector as central to society’s industrial-economic structure with private and public sectors in attendance. The present private-public model allows for innumerable problems to flourish: leaks and losses resulting from misplacement of resources, non-use or misuse of potentialities under private and state authorities, diminishing purchasing power resulting from compromise agreements between representatives of those authorities, lack of transparency, corruption and many other problems festering in the innumerable cracks and chasms in the bedrocks of the private and the state. Instead of putting the interests of common people first, the system of mixed economy—capitalist and socialist—tends to shield various vested interests while subjecting common people to aggressive commercial marketing and social welfare programs.
Prout’s line of action is to evolve cooperative industry as the essential factory floor and market place. Now, in the preceding episode it was asked whether common people would be able to participate meaningfully in something like a decentralized economic democracy. In this episode, the question is how the cooperative sector will provide properly for human motivation, participation, productivity and development. Mind you, the reputation of industrial collectivization, such as in Eastern Europe where communist farms and factories left industry and economy in tatters, is decidedly negative. Actually, both in terms of quantity and quality communist industrial growth can best be measured in terms of jokes, such as the following from a call-in radio show where the listener asks: “What shall we do if suddenly we feel a desire to work?” The radio host answers: “Just rest for a while on a sofa—it will pass” [laughter].
In fact, communism became famous for generating its own brand of jesting. Consider this: A man dies and goes to hell. There he discovers that he has a choice: he can go to capitalist hell or to communist hell. Naturally, he wants to compare the two, so he goes over to capitalist hell. There outside the door is the devil, very well dressed up and looking a bit like the American president. “What’s it like in there?” asks the visitor. “Well,” the devil replies, “in capitalist hell, they skin you alive, then they boil you in oil and then with sharp knives they cut you up into small pieces.” “That’s terrible!” the visitor gasps, “I’m going to cheque out communist hell!” He goes over there where he discovers a huge queue of people waiting to get in. Eventually he gets to the front and there at the door is a little old man who looks a bit like Karl Marx. “I’m still in the free world, Karl,” the visitor says, “and before I come in, I want to know what it’s like in there.” “In communist hell,” says Marx impatiently, “they skin you alive, then they boil you in oil and then with sharp knives they cut you up into small pieces.” “But… but that’s the same as capitalist hell!” protests the visitor, “why such a long queue?” “Well,” sighs Marx, “sometimes we’re out of oil, sometimes we don’t have knives, sometimes no hot water…” [laughter].
So, what does science say about the usefulness of coops? In 2005, researchers at Kent State University concluded that, quote: “The survival rate of worker cooperatives and employee-owned firms in market economics appears to equal or surpass that of conventional firms. But they typically return a different combination of economic benefits to their member-owners than do conventional firms, because they place more emphasis on job security for employee-members and employees’ family members, pay competitive wages, provide additional variable income through profit-sharing, dividends or bonuses, and offer better fringe benefits. They also support community facilities such as health clinics or schools.” Quote ended.
Coops is the idea of economy of, by and for the people put into practice; the embodiment of economic democracy with a distinct set of values that favour its members and not extraneous owners. In regular private- and state-owned companies, almighty owners are the authority deciding on main goals, system of operation and not least the distribution of profits. Everywhere, commercial intelligence is in command whereas in a coop all kinds of mindsets and skillsets each have a single vote. Now, who might be the authority in essentially flat structure coops where everybody has one vote at the generally assembly and the board of directors are answerable to that assembly only? How does directional, motivational, productive authority arise out of a wholly democratic cooperative organization?
According to Prout, three factors make for successful cooperative enterprise: 1) morality, 2) strong administration, and 3) wholehearted acceptance of the cooperative system by society. Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, the propounder of Prout, opined that wherever these three factors are evident in whatever measure, coops will achieve proportionate success.
Morality, strong administration and wholehearted acceptance. Let us look at these three points one by one.
Moral persons strive to do virtuous acts and shun vices. Good deeds are constructive and liberating whereas vices are degrading. These things are known to all, even to hardened criminals, but there is a heaven and hell difference between living a moral life and simply knowing the difference between right and wrong. How do we become moral or immoral in practice? Most of us have heard stories of terrible sinners who eventually became great moralists after having reached rock bottom and changed radically. But such cases are exceptional and few in number. Most people become gradually more moral or immoral resulting from everyday life, and there is no saying in which direction life will take anyone of us. In fact, it is easier to go downhill than uphill—it often seems easier to just ignore and even play along with one’s own vices or those of others than resisting them. In fact, most problems of society derive from the fact that even if anti-social elements are in minority they still benefit from the reality that moral and neutral people mostly refrain from organizing themselves to challenge wrongdoers openly. The majority of so-called moral people seem to not even dream of disallowing others from proceeding on their chosen path even when the actions of the morally bankrupted are not in harmony with human ethics at all.
What is morality; what sets virtue over vice and where would that take us? The type of morality promoted by Prout is subjective and not objective morality. Objective morality teaches one to observe certain moral principles and commands. The idea of objective morality is that those able to comply with moral commands, such as not stealing, not lying, etc., are moral people. In reality, such morality is only theoretical as such commands do little to elevate people’s existential status. For instance, in fear of being punished one may refrain from stealing openly but may steal secretly whenever the opportunity arises.
Subjective morality, on the other hand, is geared towards improving one’s inner core, to bring a person forward on the path of existential evolution. Such morality is a progressive force that takes one from a state of initial ethical awareness to being a fully emancipated individual among others living together in growing mutual understanding. Such elevating morality informs people about ways and means to evolve their individual and collective life towards still subtler states, whereas objective morality remains wedded to objective commands and not to the well-being of people. The main difference between those two types of morality is that objective morality views moral principles as ends to themselves—if you follow them you are seen as a good person—whereas subjective morality views ethics as a required enzyme, if you like; a firm stepping-stone to higher attainments. It goes without saying that objective morality may result in guilt-feeling and manipulation by so-called moral authorities, while subjective morality genuinely empowers.
Proper morality prepares and inspires human higher aspiration. Without it we not only remain unfulfilled but regress and may fall from humanity. A practical example is contemplation, the one thing that defines a human being, the ability to reflect on greater existence. To a thief or a lier, such contemplation is an impossible task as covering up one’s ill deeds remain the dominant focus. An immoral person is just not able to set his or her mind on subtler matters because of the insistent recurrence of crooked thoughts associated with petty and criminal issues. Rather, the negative ideation of the immoral will only magnify and multiply evil in their lives. If directed towards proper self-inquiry, he or she will quite naturally express considerable restlessness and frustration.
Only the mind of a moral person, guilt-free and undisturbed, will be able to enter relaxed into the greater calm that makes for proper contemplation and reflection on life’s further goals. That’s why Prout places great emphasis on moral education from kindergarten through university and wherever and whenever else called for. As a principle, reformatory training should replace penal measures in society and practical moral education would be essential to that. The present atmosphere, saturated with economic greed and selfishness, necessitates suitable moral training to regenerate moral courage in society, at work places, in localities and ultimately at the global level.
Where does moral and immoral education happen for most people? Generally, and as already noted, it happens everywhere and at all times in our lives but especially so during our formative years and in three particular places: at home, in our locality and at school. If public authorities desire for a high grade moral society they have no choice but to opt for morally-based education within the school system because there is no guarantee that all families and localities are equally morally conscious. Under Prout, coops will reflect the morality taught in schools and will also contribute towards appropriate adult education for their members wherever required or sought for. In a universally minded society, morality will be a natural topic of discussion and the common yardstick for all proceedings and daily affairs.
The second factor for successful coops is strong administration. Strong administration does not indicate the brutal and fascist but one whose motivation, planning and execution is one and the same. The thoughts, words and deeds of strong administrators all correspond. Without such congruity, big ideas and visions come to naught when troubled by internal and external strife and clashes. Moral cohesiveness allows a person to stand firm brimming with moral courage regardless of undue pressure, threats and manipulation. Transparency is the hallmark of strong moral administration. As there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear; everything is open for all to see.
Strong administration is needed at any level of governance for coops to succeed. It is extremely difficult for social-minded coops to succeed in an environment of economic exploitation, corruption and materialism. Shrii Sarkar offered the following practical example: Everywhere, markets are plagued with black marketeering in form of goods unaccounted for and whose origins and quality remain unclear. To stop black-marketeering strong steps need to be taken by authorities. For example, to protect the clothing industry, the government should pass a law which prevents the sale of any clothing without the trademark of the producers coop where it is made. Thus, if black-marketeers try to sell any clothing without trademarks, they can be easily caught. This simple but effective remedy is known to politicians who nevertheless do nothing about it because those local and federal politicians in many countries act as agents of capitalists and take money from those black-marketeers and hoarders to fight election campaigns. Strong administrators would have the moral fibre needed to stand up to and combat such immoralists effectively.
The third factor of successful coops is wholehearted acceptance by the local people. People readily unite around common ideas and sentiments when faced with mortal danger, war, economic ruin, and so on. However, as soon as the danger is averted, the unity also evaporates. Why does unity disappear along with danger and where do they end up? In many cases, unity is associated with negative sentiments against a perceived enemy or threat. Consequently, once such negatives are gone, those anti-sentiments, too, are no longer of any use to the members of that society, and without any constructive sentiment their sense of unity slips away. Hence, eager cooperativists need to plan for both the short and long term. They must develop strong positive sentiments in support of long-term efforts for evolving their cooperative economic democracy. “Abolish centralized economy to end exploitation; establish decentralized economy for the good and happiness of all” is a slogan that expresses a positive, constructive cooperative sentiment.
Anything new, in order to be accepted, however useful it may seem to administrators and other followers, needs to be presented in proper psychological ways. Take for instance the sphere of agriculture. Ownership of land remains very close to a farmer’s heart. Farmers may donate large volumes of produce but will refrain from selling even a few square meters of their inherited land. Hence, for the introduction of cooperative management in agriculture Prout promotes a two-phase plan.
In the first phase, all uneconomic holdings should be required to join the cooperative system so that they will become economic holdings. Uneconomic holdings are those where the market price of the produce is less than the cost of production after including the costs of all inputs. As uneconomic holdings are not profitable, landowners usually refrain from working them. The responsibility for cultivating such land will not lie with the owners but with the cooperatives under the auspices of the local government and with its assistance. In this phase, coops will only consist of those people who merged their land together to make uneconomic holdings economic. Private ownership will run side-by-side with those coops, so that both sides may learn about the pros and cons of the respective ways of agrarian management. During this period of initial integration, Prout will not raise the demand for land ceilings, but the sale of agricultural land will be prohibited and uneconomic landholdings will be brought under cooperative management.
In the second phase, all should be encouraged to join the cooperative system. To encourage people to form coops, successful cooperative models should be established and people should be educated about the benefits of the cooperative system.
In a later phase, there will be rational distribution of land and redetermination of ownership. Two factors will determine the rational distribution of land: the minimum holding of land necessary to maintain a family, and the farmerʼs capacity to utilize the land. Eventually, Shrii Sarkar comments, there will be no conflict over the ownership of land.
In the final phase, congenial environment will exist due to psychic expansion because people will learn to think for the collective welfare rather than for their petty self-interest. Such a change will certainly not come overnight. Unless there is suitable psychic preparation through internal urge and external preparation over time, people will never accept this system, and it cannot be forcibly imposed on them.
As previously indicated, it is extremely difficult for coops to succeed under capitalism. Coops are forced to compete with the monopoly capitalists for local markets, and the rights of the local people over their raw materials are not recognized. Such circumstances have undermined the success of many a fledgling coop startup as well as established coops in many countries of the world.
Decentralized economy, as discussed in the preceding episode on economic democracy and in the following episode on socioeconomic movements, will emerge as a principal reason for the success of the cooperative system. The availability of local raw materials will guarantee constant supplies to cooperative enterprises, and cooperatively produced goods can be easily sold in the local market. Economic certainty will create increasing interest and involvement among the cooperative members, and as the local people will be confident of their economic security, they can wholeheartedly accept the cooperative system.
Local people will make up the membership of Prout’s coops. Definitions of local people and outsiders were suggested in the preceding episode on economic democracy. Only those who have merged their socioeconomic interests with the local will have the right to determine the quantum of minimum requirements and the basic policies related to their own economic well-being. The members of the coops should decide the policies concerning such things as agricultural production, price fixation and the sale of agricultural commodities. Local people should not only control cooperative bodies, but supervise all activities related to the local economy. The local administration will have to assist the economic development of coops. Agricultural, industrial and trade policies will have to be formulated according to the principles of decentralized economy, that is, an economy under local democratic control.
Prout’s industrial-economic system is threefold, consisting of a cooperative sector attended by reformed public and private sectors. Most key industries, such as energy and communications, would be managed by the local government guided by the principle of “no profit, no loss” including profits required for further development and research but excluding both accounted and unaccounted for income sinked into corruption and decay.
Most small-scale and cottage industries will be in the hands of individual owners. Small-scale industries should be confined mainly to the production of non-essential commodities such as luxury items and highly specialized services such as instruments building and repairs, food catering and any other small-scale business useful to the greater society and to coops in particular. In this way, many family-owned firms will figure as sub-suppliers to coops. Though privately owned, they must maintain adjustment with the cooperative sector to ensure a balanced economy. According to Prout’s first fundamental principle, private businesses will not be allowed to grow and multiply beyond certain limitations, and on principle such ventures will be turned into coops once they reach a certain number of employees and attain a higher level of socioeconomic significance.
Most medium-scale industries should be managed as coops. The cooperative sector will be the main sector of the economy. Coops are the best means to organize local people independently, guarantee their livelihood and enable them to control their economic welfare.
Prout envisions a web of various industries locally and regionally. Consumer coops should be supplied with commodities from both agricultural and producers coops. Commodities which do not go directly from agricultural coops to consumer coops should be produced by producers coops. In addition, non-farming commodities should be compulsorily produced by producers coops. For example, agricultural or producers coops which produce cotton or silk thread should sell the thread to weavers coops which can produce cloth on their power looms. For particular output, Shrii Sarkar comments that hand looms can also be used where intricate design work is required, but generally weavers coops should install the latest power looms. The weavers coops will in turn supply consumers coops.
The local administration will also have to arrange for the supply of sufficient power to facilitate industrial production. Every region in a socio-economic unit must strive to be self-sufficient in power generation, be it solar energy, thermal, bio-gas, hydroelectricity, nuclear, pneumatic, electromagnetic, tidal or any other power which is easily available locally. The generation of power is a key industry which should be run on a no profit, no loss basis so that the cost of production is minimized and the purchasing capacity of the people is increased.
Shrii Sarkar takes the example of battery production. If batteries are produced through cottage industries, power should be supplied on a no profit, no loss basis, but the battery producers will be able to sell their batteries at a rational profit. Here the power that is used to manufacture the batteries is not an industrial commodity but a raw material. The power for such things as transportation, communication, schools, colleges and hospitals should also be supplied on a no profit, no loss basis to maintain social dynamism. Local and federal governments will have to take the responsibility to supply power as a key industry.
Car production provides another example of how many small satellite coops may be formed to supply various items to large producers coops. The many different parts for a motor car can be locally manufactured in small coops. The members of these small satellite coops may even carry on their work from their homes, involving all their family members. The main function of large producers coops will be to assemble the different car parts. This will have two benefits: the large coop will not require many labourers hence labour unrest will be minimized, and labour costs will be reduced and thus the cost of the commodities will be kept low.
All kinds of industrial activities from key industries to cottage industries should be organized with the cooperation of the local population. Care should also be taken so that private enterprises are set up by the local people. Local people must be given preference in employment, and all local people should be locally employed. If this policy is followed, there will be no surplus or deficit labour among the local people. We already discussed the status of outsiders and floating populations under Prout, and efforts should be ongoing to have them permanently settled either in this or that locality wherever they feel at home.
In economic democracy centring on the cooperative system the problem of unemployment will be solved. Rather, people will not chase jobs but jobs will chase people. As production increases the need for more facilities and resources will also increase. Educated people can be employed as skilled workers. There will also be a need for tractor drivers, labourers and cultivators, and cooperative members will naturally do this work. Village people will not need to move to the cities for employment. In the cooperative system there should be no compulsory age for superannuation. People should be free to work as long as they like, providing their health permits.
A decentralized economy will be one of the principal reasons for the success of the cooperative system. The availability of local raw materials will guarantee constant supplies to cooperative enterprises, and cooperatively produced goods can be easily sold in the local market. Economic certainty will create increasing interest and involvement among the cooperative members, and as the local people will be confident of their economic security, they can wholeheartedly accept the cooperative system.
Those socio-economic units which do not have a sufficient supply of raw materials will have to manufacture synthetic or artificial raw materials. Suppose a unit or region does not have an adequate supply of fodder to feed its cattle or sheep. Will it import fodder from another unit or region? No, it should manufacture artificial fodder instead. As science advances, coops will develop and manufacture a great variety of commodities from synthetic raw materials. In the capitalist system, raw materials are imported from other countries or regions in order to manufacture finished products. Coops will not follow this system. They will develop their own raw materials through research so that they are not dependent on foreign raw materials.
As far as possible, agriculture, industry and trade should be managed through coops. In these sectors of the economy private ownership should be abolished in stages. Only where production cannot be undertaken by coops because of the complex nature or small scale of operations should it be undertaken by private enterprises. The distribution of commodities should be done through consumers coops. Commodities should be exported from one region or socio-economic unit to other regions or units through coops.
Adequate safeguards for coops will also have to be arranged. Under capitalism, cooperative ownership cannot stand in open competition with individual enterprise. Thus, initially it requires protective armour – that is, exemption from sales tax, duties, etc. This protection should be withdrawn slowly. Protective armour should be limited to essential commodities only. Individual enterprise should be limited to those commodities which are not essential for life, such as kiosks, coffee houses, restaurants, etc. As discussed in the preceding episode, there will be no income tax, but there should be a tax levied on the production of each commodity. Taxes, levies, excise duties, etc., should be collectively paid by the coop, thus freeing individual farmers from financial pressure and economic exploitation. In many economically developed countries, there are no land taxes because the revenue collected from such taxes is only a very small part of the total revenue.
A cooperation-centred system will eliminate confusion regarding whether or not a particular industry should be managed privately or by the government, and will avoid overlap of government and private enterprises. Discussions and regulations of workers salaries, their conditions, etc. will cease to take place between public and private sector representatives and will be dealt with in the various coops themselves. The permanent solution to the dysfunctional public-private sector dialectics is large scale implementation of the cooperative system and the socialisation of land, industries, trade and commerce. Key industries should be large scale industries managed and owned by the immediate government, and in order to keep labour relations congenial, a bonus system of work and piece work payments should be adopted. The harder and better the people work, the more profit they will get. Under communism the slogan was: “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his necessity.” In the cooperative system the slogan is: “Each will get according to his or her capacity.” Due to this slogan, people will work harder. People will put all their talent and energy into a task and production will increase.
Details of the cooperative system of wealth distribution, including general and special amenities, were discussed in the previous episode on economic democracy. There, the significance of developing local competence and technology was also emphasized. Coops will provide employment for local people, and also ensure that the skills and expertise of the local people are fully utilized. Educated people should also be employed in coops so that they do not leave the local area in search of employment or move from the countryside to the cities. Agriculture in particular plays a huge role in feeding people throughout the world. For the development of agriculture there is a great need for specialists and technicians, so coops will have to train unskilled rural people so that they can acquire the necessary skills to develop the agricultural sector. In addition, all types of pre- and post-harvest industries will have to be developed according to the needs and resources of the local area, and these industries should be managed as coops.
Besides agricultural coops, Prout advocates the formation of other types of coops, including producers and consumers coops. Producers coops include pre- and post-harvest and non-agricultural industries. The total profit of such coops should be distributed among the workers and members of the coop according to their individual capital investment in the coop and the service they render to the production and management of the coop.
Similarly, consumers coops should be formed by like-minded persons who will share the profits of the coop according to their individual labour and capital investment. Those who are engaged in the management of such coops will also be entitled to draw salaries on the basis of the services they render to the coop. Consumers coops will distribute consumer goods to members of society at reasonable rates.
Commodities can be divided into three categories – essential commodities such as basic food items, clothing and medicines; demi-essential commodities such as many everyday utilities; and non-essential commodities such as luxury goods. If hoarders create artificial shortages of non-essential commodities common people will not be affected, but if they accumulate essential commodities then common people will suffer tremendously. This situation can be avoided if consumers coops purchase essential commodities directly from producers coops or agricultural coops.
A further type of coops is service coops. They are more sophisticated than primary industries and typically employ highly educated and creative work force. Let us take the example of dentists. Suppose a dentist is unable to open his or her own practice, he or she may form a service-coop with a number of other dentists and staff. Such a coop is an educated service-coop. Such a system will solve the unemployment problem of many vocations, facilitate further training and education, and become a platform of research. In the same way, artists, various type of consultants and counselors and many other skilled vocations may profit from forming service coops together and draw on each others expertise and experience on a common business platform.
Besides these types of coops, there are coops such as banking, housing and family annuity coops. Under Prout, banks are run by coops only, not by private and public enterprise, and banks are typically functions of producers coops to which they are directly attached. The central or federal bank overseeing financial policy will continue to be publicly owned.
Cooperative members should form a board of directors for each coop. The board of directors should be elected from among the cooperative members – their positions should not be honorary; proper duties will be attached to all posts against which salaries will be paid. Shrii Sarkar advised that care should be taken to ensure that not a single immoral person is elected to the board. All directors must be moralists.
The board should decide the amount of profit to be divided among the members; that is, the dividend to be paid to each shareholder. However, the total profit should not be distributed in the form of dividends – some should be kept for reinvestment or purchasing items such as machinery and other operating equipment; some should also be used for increasing authorized capital; and some should be deposited in the reserve fund. The reserve fund should be used to increase the value of the dividend in the years when production is low. If this system is followed the authorized capital will not be affected.
What should be the system of share distribution in coops? As discussed earlier, Prout advocates a phase-wise socialisation of farmland managed cooperatively. In the initial phase of transition to cooperative management, land shares should be in the hands of those who are land holders. That is, initially the shares in agricultural or farmers coops should be distributed on the basis of the land vested in the coop. When the cooperative system is fully implemented in the agriculture sector, there will not be any distinction between landholders and non-landholders, as all members of the coop will be collectively responsible for the management of the land. However, this stage can only be achieved after the proper psychological preparation of the people.
The workforce in the agricultural cooperative system will be composed of the shareholding farmers and non-shareholding labourers. Both groups will benefit: the shareholding farmers will get regular salaries for their work plus a return on their shares, while the labourers will enjoy stable employment and favourable wages.
There are two types of non-shareholding labourers working in agricultural coops – those who are permanent labourers and those who are casual or contract labourers. The permanent labourers will get bonuses as incentives besides their wages, while casual labourers will only get wages for their labour. Those labourers who give the greatest service to the coop should get the greatest bonuses. Skilled workers should get paid more than unskilled workers. This will be an incentive for all to become skilled labourers and to work harder. Bonuses should be paid according to the amount of wages which should reflect both the skill and productivity of the labourer.
Members of agricultural coops will get dividends in two ways – according to the amount of land they donated to the coop, and according to the amount of their productive manual or intellectual labour. To pay this dividend, initially the total produce should be divided on a fifty-fifty basis – fifty percent should be disbursed as wages and fifty percent should be paid to the shareholders in proportion to the land they donated. Wages need not be accepted only in the form of money. They may be accepted in the form of essential goods or even services. Prout advises to gradually increase this component of wages in adjustment with the monetary component of wages.
Then how much should members in an industrial coop get? In the preceding episode Prout’s system of remuneration was explained: salaries that cover life’s minimum necessities, special amenities for special output, general amenities for all and ever-increasing purchasing capacity. Now, how to determine all this, and have you heard the one about how many who actually work at my work place? About half! [laughter]. How to increase activity and output in a collective endeavour such as a coop?
In industrial coops, workers should be stimulated by incentives in the form of piece-work and bonus systems. In the piece-work system, workers receive the profit or part of the profit from each item they produce. The more labourers produce, the greater their income. In the bonus system, bonuses are calculated on the basis of the time saved in the production of commodities. The money value of time saved is given to the workers. Furthermore, the right of management by workers in factory affairs should be clearly accepted.
In the cooperative system there should not be any scope for interest earning shares; that is, there should not be profit earning shares in coops. In industrial coops there should be dividend earning shares and not profit earning shares as in bank interest, otherwise these coops will also become commercial enterprises. If there are profit earning shares, the spirit of the cooperative system will be destroyed and coops will go into the hands of capitalists.
Members who purchase shares in the coop should have no power or right to transfer their shares without the permission of the coop, but shares may be inherited. In case there is no descendant, then shares should pass on to legally authorized successors who will become members of the coop if they are not already members. In this way capitalists are prevented from purchasing large numbers of shares in a coop and manipulating markets, which could have led to all sorts of wild fluctuations and even depressions.
It seems appropriate to finish up this episode with a particularly touching quote by Shrii Sarkar. The recurrent theme of his ideas of economic democracy, decentralised economy and coops is people-building, generating moral fibre and spiritual vision in us all. While discoursing on coops in 1988, he offered: “The sweetest unifying factors are love and sympathy for humanity. The wonts of the human heart are joy, pleasure and beatitude. In the physical realm the best expression of this human sweetness is the cooperative system. The cooperative system is the best representation of the sweet nectar of humanity.”
With this vision we conclude this episode on the cooperative system of Prout’s economic democracy. The following episode takes a look at Prout’s idea of socioeconomic movements. Thank you, and goodbye for now.