The Auroville Economy: Two views on the way forward

Auroville Today: You helped organize this recent seminar on the Auroville economy. Where did the idea come from?

Judith: The initiative came from the Institute. [Sri Aurobindo International Institute for Educational Research, based in Auroville – eds.] Later, a small group was convened to organize it and I became involved. Originally, I had envisaged that we would cover the whole Auroville economy. But when the seminar began, it soon be came clear that the question of personal maintenance was the key – that until we solved that, we could not talk about the rest. 

An efficient collective economy is often seen as a means to solving this. What do you understand by the term “collective economy”?

I have no overall vision. This is what we are trying to discover in these meetings. A collective economy could be something centralized, not necessarily in terms of all the money, but in terms of decision making, of how we distribute the money. But this idea has its limitations. It’s asking too much of human nature at present. We don’t have the vision.

We’re looking for the unity with diversity and basically this is a question of consciousness. What is clear at the moment is that, in terms of our economy, something has gone off. When you leave a lot of the dealing with money to individuals, there is a tendency for them to get caught up in the power this gives them and to lose the vision of the whole. We have to find a way to encourage the feeling that everything belongs to everybody or nobody in particular. But at the same time we must allow space for each person to express themselves, to be creative, above all to allow the Divine to work through the individual. That’s the real aim of Auroville in all its aspects. 

What does this mean practically?

I feel that the productive units should not feel that the money is theirs. We have to get away from this feeling that just because I put my self, my energy into something, I can say what happens to the profits without referring to anybody else. I think that it should be left entirely up to the unit to decide what is surplus, but once the surplus has been decided upon, the allocation of this money must be done by a wider, overseeing group. And people like Ulli, for example, who have a good sense of money management, must be a part of that group. The present situation gives disproportionate power to the productive units and this is not right.

Another thing to do is to de-link work and money at least in terms of, “If you work here you can get so much and if you work there you’ll get so much more.” I acknowledge however that there is a link between work and money, and if you don’t work for the collective you don’t have any right to expect it to support you. We are too small a community to support a large number of non-contributing members. 

Is the distinction between individual and community work always clear?

Collective work is not difficult to define. It’s clear on an intuitive level. And then I’m quite clear if somebody’s commitment is questioned, they must be able to demonstrate that they do a minimum of 5 hours of work a day, 6 days a week, for the collective. But for many people this doesn’t come into question – their commitment is obvious. 

The feeling appears to be growing, both in these meetings and the community as a whole, that we’ve reached a fairly extreme point of individualism and now we need to ensure, as a community, that the basics are covered for everybody who contributes to the work.

Yes. This is what I believe. But I don’t see the last few years as leading us away from the ideal. I think Auroville evolves by spirals and it’s been worthwhile to be responsible for ourselves and to become conscious of what we’re really doing. In this sense, the individual accounts at ‘Pour Tous’ have been a useful exercise in self-knowledge. I’ve also seen the level of prosperity in Auroville go up very much in the last few years.

But, yes, all surplus money generated in Auroville should go towards personal maintenance, as a first priority. This means that everybody who does work for the collective should be provided with the means to eat, buy clothes, have a roof over their head that doesn’t leak, and to have the minimum necessary transport. I’d like to see the elimination of poverty in Auroville, though I don’t believe that the commercial units alone can solve this for the whole community. It is up to the individuals as well. 

Poverty?

It exists, albeit less and less. I think there’s enough money in Auroville now, mostly in the private sector, to eliminate this, if it is channelled towards maintenance rather than development, rather than putting it into projects which we can get outside finance for. And I’m sure that if there is a minimum sense of security in the financial aspect, this will release more money into the general flow, because people will not be keeping it in the bank as a lifeline. They’ll be more willing to put it where the community needs it at any moment.

The big development money will come from outside. Auroville will be built by the world. 

Is money difficult for Aurovilians to deal with? 

There’s a very strong feeling among many people that they don’t want to deal with it at all. This is behind the idea of free services and no money exchange. I would like this too. But I recognize that it’s not workable at the moment. If we are not confronted with the necessity to create the wealth, it puts a very unfair burden on those who are taking the responsibility of doing that work. It’s too easy.

In recent years, there has been a sense that the productive units and the rest of Auroville have drifted apart, that communication between the two has been difficult. Was this evident during the seminar? Do you see signs that the gap is being bridged?

This division came through very clearly in the seminar, particularly because on the first day almost nobody from the productive units came. On the first day of the seminar for example, a will was emerging to create a new collective economy in Auroville in a radical sense. It would have been more or less back to a common pot with everybody being taken care of by a central fund, which would finance all the necessities. One of my hesitations with this was the feeling that we cannot depend totally on the productive units; the money must also come from individuals. 

On the second day, however, when some people from the productive units came, they said that we’ve tried it all before and it didn’t work. And they wanted to break the big problem of Auroville maintenance down into smaller budgets.

My personal feeling is that we are listening to each other and if we continue to listen to each other, something may happen. My hope is that this sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in the community will disappear. We have the possibility now if everybody is willing to give a little, to synthesize and to all go in the same direction.

Auroville Today: What do you understand by the term “collective economy?”

Ulli: For most people, it is linked with a common pot – putting everything together and having a group of enlightened Aurovilians distributing the resources according to community needs. I don’t believe in this. I don’t believe in any ruling body able to make decisions which would be binding on other Aurovilians. We need a balance between the individuals and the collective, between unity and diversity. We should allow every conceivable form of economic system to manifest here – provided, of course, that it fits with our ideals. At the same time, we should have a body which is conscious both of the different economic systems in Auroville and of the needs of the community. This body should work out with the community the collective needs and the priorities. 

How would they do this?

One way would be to forget about the individual and his maintenance requirements. Instead, look at every activity which deals with money, and define its budget. Say the Visa Service needs 20 hours a week to perform its function. Let’s say that’s valued at 1200 rupees a month. Then it is up to them how many people they wish to employ on that budget. This way we can break down one big problem – the Auroville deficit – into 30 or 40 smaller problems. Then we can request Aurovilians to relate to one or other of these budgets. Up till now, Aurovilians have taken the right to do anything, irrespective of whether it was useful to the community or not, and still expected the community to support them. The community should give the support to the individual to express himself and make ends meet. But if somebody rejects three or four possible activities offered, then it’s clear they’re on their own. They can’t expect community support. Then, once the budgets are identified, we can collectively try to define priorities.

Okay. Let’s assume the priorities are defined. Then what? 

Then the group who have been working with the community on this will present, with as much transparency as possible, the community’s assessment of the immediate priorities to those who are generating or bringing in money. The group will say, “These are our requirements. We leave it up to you to identify with a need and to contribute what you wish.” Nothing can be imposed. If prioritised activity is continually not getting funded, that’s valuable feedback. Then it’s time to examine it closely. 

Why should the money generators have the right to choose?

The individual related to the generation of funds has a right to identify himself with what he wishes to contribute to. People should be allowed to realise their dreams, to help realise their visions. 

But the most successful generators of money are not necessarily the wisest distributors.

No, therefore, perhaps, so much should go into unspecified, so much into specified. At the moment, perhaps only 20% of Auroville’s needs are covered by funds from productive units – the rest comes from elsewhere. If that 20% is badly distributed, it cannot play havoc. Another way to prevent an imbalance of money power is to ask everybody, not just the productive units, to contribute to the Auroville economy. Basically, if everybody starts from the point of giving more than he takes, then we can cover the small percentage of those who are old or sick or have to drop out for a moment. Also, not only the productive units but also individuals should contribute to the running of community services. The individual budget should always include an amount to cover such services. If we accept this responsibility to contribute more, then we can cover all budgets and it’s no longer a question of how to get a few thousand rupees more out of productive units. 

What has been your experience in this recent series of meetings on the Auroville economy?

I was very positively surprised by the welcome I received. Even when I expressed views others didn’t share, people listened and tried to understand. At the Seminar I was speaking about all these things – efficiency, budgets, etc. – and Patricia said to me, “It makes a lot of sense, but I feel something is missing.” And without thinking, I said, “Precisely. That’s why you’re sitting next to me.” If we can accept that we are here for the same thing, that we complement each other ... Yes, this feeling I found very inspiring. This is a real, not a phony collectivity. Not people meeting because they've been told to. But I’ve also observed in these meetings that we fail to look at the realities of our past experiments. We see them with preconceived notions, out of a fear of being confronted with something that puts ourselves and our beliefs into question. Consequently, we tend to repeat the same mistakes.