One question that should trouble most reading this is why is there such a disjunct or severe bifurcation between Kant’s unique and remarkable critiques and the miasma of his political philosophy. Perhaps, surprising as it seems, it is due to his primarily bourgeois sensibilities; certainly his political ideas are reactionary in the extreme. Yet, this is the same Immanuel Kant who produced the tremendous critiques which showcase that jewel in the crown of the trilogy -- the Critique of Practical Reason (CP).

The second critique, CP, is in essence the central work which both the first and third critiques are anchored on. If it was not for the issue of morality, it can be arguably said that Kant would not have produced the critiques as we know them for a crucial purpose of his project was to show that we can indeed have meaningful notions of the good and act that out, without being accused of metaphysical speculation or rendered impotent through scepticism. And importantly, we do not need the dogmatism of religious zealots to inform us of what is the right thing to do; our practical reason takes care of that and it is a driving force in defining us as humans.

This second part looks at how practical reason shapes Kant’s moral constructivism and is the basis of his political constructivism which runs counter to his political theory. In other words, Kant’s political reason is that which is morally driven.   

The moral basis of things

Just as Kant was adamant on providing certainty in knowledge in CR through his transcendental philosophy, he was determined to  provide reliable grounds for doing the right thing in the form of the categorical imperative, for instance. But it is not the categorical imperative as much as the moral force itself that helps create one’s reality which is at the heart of CP; it is also what underwrites the egalitarian and empowering principles of Kant's philosophical project. These ideas salvage Kant’s reputation from the harshness of his political thinking to provide, through extrapolation, what can be called his political reason.  

Early on in the CP Kant says,

In practical philosophy, which has to do only with the grounds of determination of the will, the principles which a man makes for himself are not laws by which he is inexorably bound, because reason, in practice, has to do with a subject and especially with his faculty of desire…The practical rule is always a product of reason, because it prescribes action as a means to an effect which is its purpose...It is a rule characterized by an “ought” which expresses the objective necessitation of the act and indicates that, if reason completely determined the will, the action would without exception take place according to the rule. (CP 20)    

What Kant is saying is that the will is influenced by practical reason and that is the same as free will reflective of human freedom. Man is not bound by a law by which he now must follow no matter what, but has the choice to do what is right from his own reason and if he does so it will be for the highest good of all as a duty. The moral choice comes from within and is not imposed from without: This is crucial in Kant.

Kant tries to clarify this a little later -- “But for reason to give law it is required that reason need presuppose only itself, because the rule is objectively and universally valid only when it holds without any contingent subjective conditions which differentiate one rational being from another.” (CP 21) Here Kant implies that there is no personal point of view or subjectivist perspective in producing a moral imperative for oneself. For a moral imperative is validated through practical reason which exists in each person, and that in turn is based on a moral grounding of each individual from which those imperatives and practical reason emanate; and in this way the imperatives can be regarded as universal: So we can expect that others can have similar moral imperatives and that they can understand where our own comes from. This is not an imposition of an external law or an internal one, but an imperative based on our free will which we make into a duty for ourselves without any desire for external rewards or recognition.  

We further learn from Kant,

It would be better to maintain that there are no practical laws, which must have an objective and not just subjective necessity and which must be known a priori by reason instead of by experience, no matter how empirically universal. Even the rules of uniform phenomena are denominated natural laws (for example, mechanical laws) only if we really can understand them a priori…Only in the case of subjective practical principles is it expressly made a condition that not objective but subjective conditions of choice must underlie them, and hence that they must be represented always as mere maxims and never as practical laws. (CP 27)        

Kant hearkens to the first critique on how laws are generated based on synthetic a priori conceptions and why this does not apply to moral imperatives. The ideas of the former are constitutive and regulative, whereas the latter are directive/directing in how to act. The moral imperative is not a law in that it has a way of getting agreement on its validity because it has empirical backing or can be accepted as a theoretical construct. Its force comes from its subjective-universal applicability which does not qualify it as some universal law, but rather as a maxim which one uses that can be accepted by others on a subjective-universal ground that applies to everyone. When that is used as the basis for a shared moral imperative then its force is guaranteed in a way by it not having a determinate end like the happiness of the individual or mankind. Rather the moral imperative is to ensure that we are worthy of happiness: This is what gives it objectivity from the subjective-universal ground of the will. This is central to a lot that follows and is one of Kant’s great insights.

We then reach one of the central ideas in Kant, on the links between freedom, the will and morality (Kant’s italics in all quotes):

The question now is whether our knowledge of the unconditionally practical takes its inception from freedom or from the practical law. It cannot start from freedom, for this we can neither know immediately, since our first concept of it is negative, nor infer from experience, since experience reveals only the law of appearances and consequently the mechanism of nature, the direct opposite of freedom. It is therefore the moral law, of which we become immediately conscious as soon as we construct maxims for the will, which first presents itself to us; and, since reason exhibits it as a ground of determination which is completely independent of and not to be outweighed by any sensuous condition, it is the moral law which leads directly to the concept of freedom. (CP 30).   

To Kant our knowledge of freedom comes from the practical law or moral law. We cannot understand this from the world of appearances but from the exercise of our will and freedom to choose against what the sensuous or natural world’s restrictions pose on us. For instance, the physical restrictions of the world and dangers it can bring, together with a sense of limitation that one has to struggle to survive, goes against the grain of the moral law which can make us choose -- as an act of will – freedom; or that which opposes self-interestedness (and sometimes, even survival).

Kant develops this idea further by saying that the (moral) will is pure will as there is no precedence for it in the realm of the phenomenal world as understood by natural law. It is one of a kind and can be understood as grounded on morality itself. The moral law seems to operate like a natural law but does not have the same result in that it is not a reflection of phenomena happening in the world and rationalizing causes for it. Yet, the moral law operates on the basis of generating a system of law like the natural one but is actually in the form of a maxim that a person can follow.

So Kant says,

Therefore, it is at least not impossible to conceive of a law that alone serves the purpose of the subjective form of principles and yet is a ground of determination by virtue of the objective form of a law in general. The consciousness of this fundamental law may be called a fact of reason, since one cannot ferret it out from antecedent data of reason, such as the consciousness of freedom…and since it forces itself upon us as a synthetic proposition a priori based on no pure or empirical intuition. It would be analytic if the freedom of the will were presupposed, but for this, as a positive concept, an intellectual intuition would be needed, and here we cannot assume it…

Pure reason alone is practical of itself, and it gives (to man) a universal law, which we call the moral law. (CP 31)

Kant is looking for a certain ground from which to launch the moral law and he finds it in pure reason. From this we can have certainty and communicate it to others and aim to create moral solutions to situations because we have not only the common practical grounds of reason itself, but we can project this in the form of a universal law in general (the awareness of which when generated in this manner is a fact of reason). But moral laws are not universal laws like natural ones; though they have universality due to their form which is similar to natural ones. Kant is interested in finding how we can provide certainty to moral ideas and have a basis for commonality in expressing them by showing the subjective-objective content-form they have; this also allows for universality and acceptability among peoples.

Furthermore, the idea of heteronomy (relying on something external to us) is opposed to autonomy (relying on something within us), and the latter is a distinctive feature in the expression of free will. This is an important idea that will provide the basis for further examining and recuperating from the damaging impact of Kant’s political ideas. Our man further says,

The autonomy of the will is the sole principle of all moral laws and of the duties conforming to them; heteronomy of choice…not only does not establish any obligation but is opposed to the principle of obligation and to the morality of the will.

The sole principle of morality consists in independence from all material of the law…and in the accompanying determination of choice by the mere form of giving universal law which a maxim must be capable of having. That independence…is freedom in the negative sense, while this intrinsic legislation of pure and thus practical reason is freedom in the positive sense. Therefore, the moral law expresses nothing else than the autonomy of pure practical reason, i.e., freedom. This autonomy of freedom is itself the formal condition of all maxims, under which alone they can all agree with the supreme practical law. (CP 33-34)       

Free will and the ability to choose is the idea behind moral laws and the duties it brings and it is centred within us; this makes us autonomous beings. Relying on something external to guide us and give us meaning and direction is to lose autonomy and provides a way out of moral responsibility and the obligation it brings.

The object of the moral law is the desire to do something, but we must not be a slave to that or be obsessed with an end goal to determine what is the right thing to do as it must be done as a universal principle as opposed to an end goal everyone is legislated to follow. The format of a law for our maxims shows us that it is universal and independent, but the positive aspect of our freedom comes from the obligation we give ourselves to do what is right irrespective of the impact on our comfort zones. This is what makes us free individuals, that is, the ability to break free from what constrains us. 

Then the lines that dive deeper into Kant’s idea on the connection between the supersensuous noumenon and the phenonmenal world:

The sensuous nature of rational beings in general is their existence under empirically conditioned laws, and therefore…heteronomy. The supersensuous nature of the same beings…is their existence according to laws which are independent of all empirical conditions and which therefore belong to the autonomy of pure reason. And since the laws…are practical laws, supersensuous nature…is nothing else than nature under the autonomy of the pure practical reason. The law of this autonomy is the moral law, and it, therefore, is the fundamental law of supersensuous nature and of a pure world of the understanding, whose counterpart must exist in the world of sense without interfering with the laws of the latter… (CP 43)    

Kant merges the idea of the laws of phenomena that come from reason which explain the conditional world we live in as experienced empirically with that of the seemingly unconditional world of the noumenon, as grasped and given intelligibility by practical reason. Only the latter can give an understanding of the noumenal world which natural laws cannot; and the natural world can be understood better via the underlying moral laws of practical reason which are an expression of our autonomy. The world of seeming dependence on empirical changes is underpinned by the unchanging world of freedom and morality which are direct aspects of the noumenon. Therefore, Kant’s vision of the world and the universe is a moral one.

This central idea in Kant’s thinking is further developed:

For, in fact, the moral law ideally transfers us into a nature in which reason would bring forth the highest good were it accompanied by sufficient physical capacities; and it determines our will to confer on the sensuous world the form of a system of rational beings. The least attention to ourself shows that this Idea really stands as a model for the determination of our will. (CP 43)   

It seems that Kant is saying that we can shape the world we live in, and therefore create our destiny, via expressing our freedom as moral beings for the highest good of all and this could be supported by the physical world under the right conditions. This reality which can be manifested as a moral expression of ourselves is a noumenal expression translating itself into phenomenal expression. This implies that with force of the moral law we can co-create the world we live in. It is not that we end up changing the so-called law of gravity as such, but that we change the world in a way that positively reflects our stewardship of life and the environment of the planet, through creating and sustaining the appropriate socio-economic structures.

Kant goes on to develop another of the central themes of his philosophy which forms the basis for his moral constructivism: It is not the idea of good and evil that is the datum for the moral law but the latter that provides the source for such notions. And he goes on to expand on this,

This remark, which refers only to the method of the deepest moral investigations, is important. It explains once and for all the reasons which occasion all the confusions of philosophers concerning the supreme principle of morals…Whether they placed this object of pleasure, which was to deliver the supreme concept of good, in happiness, or in perfection, in moral feeling, or in the will of God – their fundamental principle was always heteronomy, and they came inevitably to empirical conditions for a moral law. (CP 64)

Kant points out that to place the source of the highest good and the joy it may bring in a source external to oneself inevitably results in surrendering our freedom to an external law, condition or force. Heteronomy involves empirical evidence and natural law explanations to ascertain the good it generates for a person. This would be a subreption. The moral law is not only a priori and has no basis in the natural world nor metaphysical speculation, but it comes from within and thereby signals our autonomy and guarantees the certitude of the moral drive.

The idea of co-creation of reality is expanded by Kant when he says that morality as expressed via the practical law is geared towards the highest good of all, and so what we work towards in that construction of a society for everyone’s good is such that it does so for the welfare of all. This does not, however, preclude taking challenging decisions that could place us in jeopardy when, for instance, speaking truth to power. Whatever the consequence to ourselves, we will do what is right for the welfare/highest good of others; for the end goal is not the happiness of others so much as doing what makes us worthy of happiness and in that respect, we would add to the happiness of ourselves and others. (CP 69-70, 93)

The moral law is the ground from which the highest good commences. It may seem circular but there is hardly a way out for Kant on this score in that the drive and source of the highest good is itself, so it is directing in nature but not directed towards a specific goal as that would be the way the natural laws would work which are empirically/verification oriented and thereby heteronomous. (CP 109-110)

These central Kantian ideas take fuller form when expanded into how the practical will avoids the dual dilemma of empiricism and mysticism; this is also what Kant was avoiding when he wrote the CR. When the motivation and goal of our actions are our comfort and happiness instead of doing what is right, then we are guilty of seeking validation for our acts in the form of empiricism; this would fit utilitarian doctrines and is heteronomous. This would also entail seeking a reward in doing something to gain satisfaction rather than an inner motivation that would reflect one’s conscience.

Similarly, to do something based on ‘God’s will’ is not only to make metaphysical assumptions according to Kant, but to dive into mysticism/the transcendent and thus rely on divine edict’s outside of oneself; this too is to indulge in heteronomy. Our agency, free will and autonomy is denied unless we rely on our moral judgement and our capacity for this based on our will and practical reason: This is the building block for our empowerment. We are “indeed legislative members of a moral realm which is possible through freedom and which is presented to us as an object of respect by practical reason.” (CP 82) Our will towards the highest good helps us co-create a moral realm as the expression of our freedom as autonomous beings.

Yet, Kant makes the point that it is empiricism that is more worrying than the mystical. It is looking for results that can be measured to secure one’s justification for doing something that is a greater distraction for our moral disposition. He says “that empiricism is far more dangerous than all mystical enthusiasm” (CP 71) as its apparent immediacy is always a compelling factor. We are normally trapped within the exigencies of physical issues that tend to cloud the need to rely on moral judgement. This is why Kant’s political ideas contradict what his moral thought gives us (which is the ground of his critical philosophy) -- that expediency and its empirical seduction cannot triumph over the moral will of one’s conscience which is our supreme human trait.

A core aspect of Kant’s practical reason would resonate with some revolutionary activists:

It follows of itself that, in the order of ends, man (and every rational being) is an end in himself, i.e., he is never to be used merely as a means for someone (even for God) without at the same time being himself an end, and that humanity in our person must itself be holy to us, and it is only on account of this and in agreement with this that anything can be called holy. (CP 131-132)  

This is the kind of spiritual force that is usually found simmering at the heart of revolutionary thought where morality, purpose and action fuse into a whole without external incentive other than the drive for self realization for the highest good of all. True, sometimes this is mired in the goal of ridding a country of a dictatorship or oppressive regime, and that may seem heteronomous. But an unadulterated revolutionary motivation would see that no man is a commodity, and that each person is a free and autonomous being beyond measurement: For our essence is spiritual and thereby Immeasurable.

Bringing it together

A brief survey of the three critiques reveals that the first one looks at theoretical or speculative reason, what it is, and how we create knowledge. The CR looks at how we claim certainty in knowledge rather than explain what it is we exactly know. The CP looks at the free will, freedom, practical reason and their moral grounding. This in turn gives us autonomy and provides certainty in our moral claims and actions. The third critique (CJ), which is not looked at here, is about how we communicate in relation to nature, beauty, the sublime and art. It allows us to make claims about what is beautiful which though it may be subjective, still allows us to expect universal understanding from others on this. The CJ also examines issues related to the moral dimension which is the essence of Kant’s thinking.

The CR shows that we project what we know and that much of the world is understood by us a priori from the way human consciousness is ‘wired’ or ‘designed’. The CR sets the base for practical reason which goes on to show in CP, that we co-create moral realms through not only categorical imperatives but that the moral dimension is what makes the world intelligible to us: It fuses the noumenal basis of reason into understanding things in a holistic and coherent manner. So we project our moral creations and that shapes our world. This is Kant’s projection of empowerment and egalitarianism of each individual as they express themselves as free agents who can decide their destiny.

The fact of reason makes us aware of the intrinsic connection, or different side of the same coin aspect, of speculative reason and practical reason. And when we look at what is termed here Kant’s political reason we are looking at another dimension of Kant’s ideas that is, however, in contradistinction to his political thinking. Political reason expresses itself via synthetic a priori political theorizing that appropriately and effectively replaces and projects a viable set of political ideas for Kant.

Earlier it was mentioned that Kant’s subreption occurred when he made moral claims from his political ones, and the combined fetishized notions of them slipped into transcendentalism and transcendence: Because the moral drive has been hegemonised by the political one of expedience and Rightism/legalism. And republicanism, constitutionalism, and Rightism/legalism are treated as transcendent goals or Ideals to be realized and used to justify a reactionary status quo. We understand political reason to be underwritten by moral drives and practical reason (which also underpin pure reason and thereby theoretical/speculative reason).

Thus, political theories would be fused with moral drives as an expression of the moral ground. They are not hegemonised by morality but made intelligible solely by morality just as the workings and resultant products of reason itself are intelligible due to its practical essence.

Therefore, political reason gives proper and cogent expression to Kant’s political philosophy. It is also fused with practical reason -- which is what ultimately anchors his critiques and overall philosophical project. In other words, the accurate way to understand Kant’s political ideas is to apply them as moral constructs.

The material for Kant’s political theory would also be synthetic a priori in that there are notions of democracy, general will, social contract, equality, public good etc which are a priori constructs. These are then formulated into theories which would support ideas of republicanism (as various shades of democracy), authoritarianism, totalitarianism, socialism, anarchism, and all that would be termed radical political thinking. When we try to work this out empirically it is called politics and academically, political science. So another way to put it is that Kant’s political reason is the expression of a synthetic a priori projection of theoretical constructs aligned with the moral drive.

We could say that pure reason has the dimensions of practical reason (that underlies it), theoretical/speculative reason, and political reason. The latter can be expressed as theoretical constructs, and itself is an expression of practical reason and of the moral essence grounding it.

It can also be said that Kant’s republicanism, legalism, Right-ism and constitutionalism, as well as his fixation with a hierarchical system of government is a product of his theorizing which he attempts to verify with examples from his time and experience. These are manifestations of transcendental thinking which are used to explain and rationalize politics, traditional societal structures and forms of control. That Kant’s political ideas are reactionary in the extreme and even harsh in many aspects can only be speculatively said to be the result of his bourgeois attitudes and existence, and from biographical information that in his later years he conformed to authority; though this may have also been his way of showing that he was a good citizen of his land.

The problem starts when he takes his political theorizing to logical extremes, wherein the transcendental logic used to draw conclusions in a linear fashion finally produces puerile statements as seen where whatever good he attempts to rationalize through stability leads to despotism. Legal or constitutional despotism is still despotism; these are subtleties lost on the later Kant whose sharpness of mind is blunted by a form of worship of authority, and fetishized logicism.

It becomes problematic and painfully embarrassing when Kant facilely tries to combine his profound moral thinking with the effrontery of his politics. But we now can see the contradiction is severe for his entire moral philosophy is at odds with his political theory in that it is the former which is an expression of the spiritual in man, and the assertion of his freedom in contrast to being a driveling and sniveling slave to authority.

We need to extrapolate Kant’s ideas and see that the proper application of his practical reason to political reason can add to clarity in the form of the concept of practical political reason. Hence, we grasp the emphasis that the intelligibility granted to political reason comes from the moral dimension espoused as practical political reason (PPR). Through the term PPR it is easier to see that it is our moral grounding that determines our political thinking and thereby our political theories and actions. This means we have political theories that are projected from the morally grounded ideas of freedom, justice, egalitarianism, and wealth sharing and distribution for the highest good of all. So PPR would take us away from Kant’s reactionary bombast and towards uncharted territories in that it is an expression of our creative powers to meet challenges and forge the society we want.

Kant’s moral constructivism would include John Rawls’s notion of it, but it is developed here as people co-creating their own moral realm and society. As moral agents we create a moral realm, or world, made intelligible and free from the constraints that may be imposed by the phenomenal world; but also recognizing the pragmatic need to adapt to its physical constructs. Yet, the phenomenal world can also be influenced and shaped by the moral co-creation of human beings, as societal structures and phenomena can be changed to reflect moral consciousness.

Therefore, through each person via categorical imperatives and the exercise of their autonomy and free will grounded in morality we co-create a just and fair society that allows for the betterment of all and the highest realization of human potential. This is hardly utopia but what can be created when PPR is in force. It is just that we have not really given this a proper go yet.

“This book, being about work, is, by its very nature, about violence – to the spirit as well as to the body…It is, above all (or beneath all), about daily humiliation. To survive the day is triumph enough for the walking wounded among the great many of us.” -- Working, Studs Terkel

 

For the small group of readers of this blog, in case you may've been wondering, this has been a year of personal tragedy. Notwithstanding, I am grateful for the difficult but important spiritual lessons arising from this. This has also stopped in its tracks a project begun sometime last year which was meant to culminate in a book of sorts.

Rather than confine into obscurity some of the interviews that came about for this project, I've decided to put them here. This is an unfinished and perhaps never ending project. But I thank all those who gave me their time and shared their views: and to you all I do apologise that your effort is not being given a larger audience.

The people interviewed are at least a year or so older now.

Below is the draft preface I had in mind of which an extract is posted.

The preface that never was

A few years ago when visiting and staying with friends in Vancouver, Canada, I underwent an epiphany. I remember looking at the lovely view of English Bay, the mountains and downtown Vancouver all in one sweep from a penthouse view of a friend. As I was planning my day and the walk I would take across Granville Bridge to the downtown area and further on to visit some second hand bookshops, I recalled that if I were to traverse even further down I would be at the East End.

Part of the East End, which is next to Tinseltown cinema multiplex and Chinatown, was a very different side of the city. There not only will you find poverty but drug addicts shooting up openly in alleys in daylight. I remember once even seeing inert bodies lying in the middle of unclean streets which would over qualify for an archetypical movie setting for seediness. Police cars would drive by oblivious of the junkies and those peddling their addictive wares. The cops would not even stop to take a closer look at the bodies lying still in some streets to see if they had any life left in them.

I asked my friends what they thought of the remarkable contrast of the wonderful city and beautiful country they lived in with the inexplicable mess in the East Side -- this included mentioning to them the drug related violence in other parts of the city.

Most of the time my friends would give the answer that the reasons why this deplorable state existed was due to poverty in some instances and ‘wrong choices’ as the obverse side of ‘freedom’ in their land. Corruption among officials was also quoted as a perennial problem which also haunts so many other societies.

But let me give some more context to all this.

In 2006, I had dropped out of the System in the sense that I was not fully employed and had to live on a tight budget. This was not my first experience of such living but I did not realize that the economic hardship the world is facing was going to see so many others placed not only involuntarily in my position, but living on an even tighter budget.

In 2006 and 2007 I was on an extended meditation retreat at a Buddhist monastery in British Columbia, Canada. After the retreats I continued my stay there with friends before returning home to Singapore. The retreats were in a forested area where we lived off the grid but comfortable enough for most lay people to be able to adjust to. You did have to be sensitive to not frightening the lovely deers around the area and be cautious about running into bears, grizzlies too. I remember running into a couple of large grizzlies and standing perfectly still while recalling all the spiritual teachings I knew to stay calm as I was all alone on an afternoon walk in the woods. But on seeing a human, it was the grizzlies who turned tail and ran (they can really run, don't be fooled by the size).

Minutes later, I found empty bullet shells along the pathway I was on: some hunters must have been busy doing great PR work for humanity.

Later in 2007, I visited Sri Lanka when Colombo was in a near state of emergency with the then ongoing ethnic violence holding the island in its grip. With all the soldiers and armaments around in a quasi siege like atmosphere, I understood clearly why much of Nature has suffered at the hands of mankind. At that time I was also staying at a Buddhist monastery but was not on a retreat as such. I was taken to view a meditation centre that was being built in a beautiful hilly tea growing area and which I was supposed to live at as a coordinator of retreats in the near future.

This unfortunately did not work out in part due to funding problems for the meditation centre that delayed its construction and other issues that cropped up of a more bureaucratic nature that proved to be one obstacle too many. It is still being constructed.

Then in late 2008, I was on my third extended retreat this time in England. After the retreat I stayed with some family members who were residing in the suburbs of London. During the period of 2008 and 2009, due to certain experiences and some books that fell into my hands, I was propelled towards  many things including the project that has now led me to write these words.

...Some of the books that launched me towards my current project included Karl Marx’s Das Capital, Friedrich Engel’s The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, Henry Mayhew’s London Labour and the London Poor, Jack London’s The People of the Abyss, George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London, The Jungle (the unexpurgated version) by Upton Sinclair, Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s The Motorcycle Diaries (and his other major works), James Agee’s Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: The American Classic, in Words and Photographs, of Three Tenant Families in the Deep South, and William T. Vollmann’s Poor People to name the ones that come easily to mind.

...We have to see the people around us as our sisters and brothers and understand that we are all part of the collective consciousness of the planet. This means that no one who is underprivileged or living in poverty, even if it seems that they do so out of the choices they have made, should be left alone to bear the consequences and not receive any help.

We are truly indeed one another’s keepers and we should come up with new ideas to issue in a new paradigm of creating and measuring growth and move away from the browbeaten capitalist mode of competition at all cost, and greed over human dignity. We need to centre within our beings care for the planet, our environment, all living species and, above all, place the highest value on human beings over grasping for money.

The voices represented here are based on interviews with some people whom I know and those whom I do not. In many instances, I have let the people speak for themselves and that will be their way of directly communicating with you. They are speaking, in some cases, with much more thought put in than they would in a casual interview by someone who is just performing a journalistic function.

Not all those interviewed were comfortable in communicating entirely in English, but they managed what they could and I re-checked with them what they said before writing it up as quickly as possible on the same day I spoke to them from my usually verbatim notes.

Three basic questions were asked of all I interviewed and spoke to:

What is your idea of being poor?

What is your idea of abundance?

Why are people poor/What is poverty?

...Those who were not comfortable in English mainly responded to the last questions and as the dialogue went on I clarified what they said and they responded in their own way to the first two questions as well.

I had not read Studs Terkel when I thought of this project and began it, but was pleasantly surprised and impressed by the wonderful work he did as I started to read (among others while finishing my project) -- Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression, and Working (people talking about their work).

The biggest influence on me probably came from sections of Marx’s Das Capital: Volume One, and the books by Engels, Mayhew, Orwell and London. I had studied formally philosophy and political theory as an undergraduate and over the years kept up with my reading. In graduate school I was steeped in literary theory and aesthetics. But only in recent times did I re-read many works I had studied and then some as the scales finally fell from my eyes.

The second part of this book looks at possible economic models that can be used for firms or enterprises of all sizes. There needs to be a move away from the way most businesses are run. In particular, we need to move away from how mega corporations are run with their obsession in serving profits and shareholders at the expense of the rest of the planet.

The time has come for this to change radically.

And so,

Daily grindings

Madam Sawami (Aged 64, road sweeper, unable to retain her job after reaching 65. She has since been looking for work and I have no idea if she has been successful):

"I can work only now till 67 years old. So three more years. I want to be by myself. I want independence. My children and I, problems, cannot get along. I have my own problems don’t want to hear what their problems with their husband or wife. Then I must hear their wife’s problems also.

I want flat of my own, single room. I ask the HDB (Housing Development Board, Singapore) to help me and they say – you can wait, we have to help plenty people with no house living now on the beach. You have problem, they also have problem. What kind of help, this? Why can’t government help me? I have done nothing wrong, but government can’t help me in this, just to get a single room flat for myself.

What I earn, only $1000 one month…so I can pay installment say less than $100 a month, but please don’t take away $500 a month from me for a single room flat.

As long as I can work, help myself, have enough to eat, I am happy -- no one else will help, so I must help myself.

Now, I am alone. My children all forget what I do for them when young all, now see, I am on my own.

Can you help me with my house problem, I don’t know who [to] ask…HDB don’t want to help."

 

Mr Lam (Aged 62, food stall holder at a small hawker centre from which he rented his stall. The stall closed down as it was bought over by someone who has since set up a snazzy restaurant. No idea if he has since found another place to sell food):

"I come from a poor family. Many children, I am one of the eldest. My parents had a small stationery shop, and we managed, all of us. Now, my wife and me work at this food stall. We are not rich, if I can earn say $1,500 month I am happy, it is enough. We manage.

People who are rich -- say they earn $4,500 to $5,000 or much more…are they happy? Money is one thing, happiness something else. As the eldest in my family and myself, we had to be the bread winners to help my parents and sisters and brothers.

My family have the old Chinese thinking, the older ones sacrifice education all to support the younger ones. So my education highest – secondary 2…what to do. My English not so good, but I learn on my own by using English language tapes when I was 30 years old. I worked many things, like taxi driver and clerk in office. I also try to improve my English by speaking to those with good English, environment important to learn and practice language.

Because of my and my older brothers sacrifice, my younger sisters and brothers well educated. One of my brothers just retired as a teacher, he went to university. My daughter also is fine, she is working.

English is very important, the main business language. I think the government policy is correct, importance for English and own language or second language. Must balance with language for your own culture. But English is important. Now people can learn Japanese and French in school. Other languages very important. My younger sister learn Japanese at a language school and now she works in a Japanese company.

We were poor, but what is important is good family, happiness and health. Don’t always think of money, money, money! This rich people what happiness they have? If you are rich and happy, good for you. But most of them not like that. Everyday worry, cannot sleep, always thinking about how the business good, can make it, can make more money…all the problems of business…no peace of mind. So what if you have so much money?

Some people become poor because they don’t know how to save. They spend all the time, they want nice house, car, everything. Then when employment difficult, cannot get job, how? Cannot pay installments, become financial problems. You look at the young, they only want to have good time, spend, sports car, but never think of future, no savings. Then one day, if they cannot find work, what to do?

Some become poor because they gamble, throw away money. They think they will always be young or healthy and have a job. They don’t save. Gamble, then they lose all the money, so what to do?

The future cannot tell, cannot predict, better not to waste money and think no problems one day.

Also, I think sometimes people are poor, like in many very poor countries…because of karma. Their past life, many, many years ago, something they did, now they have to pay back. Hopefully after this life, it will be better for them.

Rich people should be generous, help the poor with donations, charity, not just here but help them in other countries also. What for keep all the money and don’t share? You cannot take with you when you leave [die], so why keep and don’t want to give?

The rich cannot enjoy life sometimes, they are so busy, so busy with time and making money. No time for family, loved ones, children…what kind of life? Even those who are top people like government, the ministers, no privacy? What kind of family life can they have, always their time is for someone else…their time and appointments all planned for them…what kind of freedom do they have?

I think I have enough, if I retire now still can survive. One of my customers who is rich and live in expensive condominium. He is 70 years old, and his wife is paralysed waist down and is in a wheelchair. He has two sons, both rich. None of them have time for him and his wife…they call on the mobile phone to find out…but too busy making money. They don’t care about their parents. So what for all this money?

When this old man tell me the story, he cry, the tears in his face as he tell me what his children are like. He and the wife are so lonely."

 

Ruwan (Aged 29, foreign worker, caregiver from Sri Lanka. Due to workplace exploitation and problems he returned home and his current situation is not known):

"People are poor because they sometimes are lazy. Not always because others at fault. They sometimes don’t know how to manage life. They throw money away and waste on things like drinking and women. Sometimes it is government’s fault why people poor. Government also don’t manage properly the country then whole country can be poor.

But to me, man is poor because it is own fault. Son from a poor family can actually do well if he studies hard in school and all, but also rich man’s son doesn’t do well because he is lazy and doesn’t want to work hard. What is important is the effort you want to have in things.

Sometimes religion can help explain all this. Like in Buddhism we are told life is dukkha, lot of suffering. So also karma is also responsible for our life. But during time of Buddha we are told there was lot of evil in world. Also people have different belief like worshipping the stone and water and all. But today, to me, also the same. When we pray to the statue we are praying to a stone or we belief in luck and things.

People the same even today from Buddha’s time till now. Now also we worship trees, water and earth. But this is not always a bad thing, sometimes this because we show respect for all around us. Nothing wrong with that. We are just grateful. Just as children who respect to parents or we show respect to our rice and food and drinking water, like in Sri Lanka, it is just a good habit.

Also, we can choose what we do, so not always karma to blame. We can choose to good or evil, we are responsible for choosing, so we are responsible also our life.

Money is important but it is not the most important. I think most important is happiness. If you’re not happy what for money? Most important is happiness to enjoy life but not waste time, meaning spend time to be happy with family and friends. That is what is important.

Nowadays when people supposed to smarter than animals, actually no difference. They are same. So much killing people do, they are not so clever. Why must there be so much killing?

In Singapore, people think money is number one. Everything is about money. People here are well to do, lot of money, money needed for everything here but parents no time for children. They put their time in money not the children. Main thing here is material things.

Children here always with maid, no parents spending time with them. So just as parents put children in nurseries because they no time for them, now children also put parents in nursing home because they also no time for them…all busy earning money.

Millionaire is not happy. He has worries like who will steal his money and property. Who can he trust? Will he loose all he have. Cannot sleep, no peace of mind. Poor man can sleep, if he has just enough for family he is okay…he doesn’t have so much problems and worry. No worry about who is going to rob him.

I see that in Singapore, it is like a car. Everything supposed to work well, very efficient, like car put in petrol make sure engine working then all is fine. But people here have no life. They are not happy, they have no time for family and friends.

My working place is a nursing home. Next to me is a child nursery. So I can see everyday what happens. They parents come and put the child in the nursery. Kids crying when hungry for mothers milk, but they get other milk not from humans. The cow is their mother because that is the only milk they get.

So I notice, parents come and put children in nursery then when children grow up they put parents in nursing home. I see and understand this for I experience this everyday. Singapore clients of my nursing home say what to do, they have to work to earn living and no choice but to put parents in home. They say in Singapore without money you cannot live, nothing you can do.

The parents have no time for children, and one day the children also no time for parents.'

Wan (Izwan, aged 25, retail supervisor at a supermarket chain):

"What does being poor mean? I think if your parents cannot provide for you, then you’re poor. If you’re grown up and cannot provide for yourself, or don’t want to, then it is because you’re lazy – so again you’re poor. If you don’t want to be poor, then you must be hardworking and provide for yourself.

A lot depends on your capability and that also depends on your education level. If you grow up without much education then you are stuck with a low paying job. No education, no high paying job. Or you just have a mediocre job.

My education is ‘O’ Levels and I am trying to upgrade myself. You must upgrade and work for it, otherwise you only can blame yourself. I have two jobs, in the day time I help out here at the coffee stall next to this market. Evening time I work as a retail supervisor at a supermarket. That is the only way I can save and have enough.

With what I can earn I provide for my parents and am saving to get married and try to own my own home. Actually in Singapore you can get jobs, that’s not the problem. It is the need for money always. The cost of housing here is high. In the long run, your property is your investment, but to try to own one – maybe 30-40 years to pay the loan to just own your roof over your head. Then the interest for the loan will kill you. Trying to settle down here is hard. You have to remember you have to feed your family.

Religion to me helps in providing knowledge about the world and your life, I mean, it’s up to each person whether they want to follow what the religion says. But you must help yourself first. If you’re lazy and don’t want to help yourself, why should God help you? You help yourself, then God will help.

I think there are people who want to help those who are poor, but also a lot of wayang [Malay word implying 'theatrics'] taking place, making a big show trying to attract attention to themselves, like the charities here – the big ones – they make a big show. Also groups or companies, like that who donate want attention only just advertise themselves and promote themselves. If you’re genuine you just give, if you give don’t make a big show and all the publicity. They just want brand recognition.

I think if we have problems in Singapore, realistically speaking, most people won’t help each other. I read a lot of books on World War Two, you see what human nature is like, here or anywhere else. People tend to be selfish, they rather not help others. Focus on the individual only.

In this world you need money. To me if you have no money then you have no happiness. Money needed for everything. It can’t be avoided. The coffee and tea cups I clean up on these tables, you can drink from what is left over from them if you don’t want to pay for it. But then, someone already had to pay for it before you can drink the remainder in the glasses. Again, you need money to have anything.

In the end you must help yourself, you must be hard working and that also depends on your health. We need self responsibility in everything.

My father’s advice to me is bear your own suffering but don’t let others suffer because of you.'

 

Sam (Aged 63, barber):

"I have been barber since 1966. People are poor because sometimes they don’t want to work hard. You have choice, you can try and do your best or just give up. Work enough so that you at least have enough to eat. Some people are lazy, but they think they can get high paying job and also easy job. Younger generation now, some just don’t want to work, many don’t want to be barbers.

Some who are poor now actually only want to enjoy life, they spend money on woman and throw away money. No savings for rainy day. If I earn say $50 one day and spend $10 or $20 that day, the rest I save. Must save for old age. Don’t rely on government for everything, government here helps but in the end, you must help yourself.

Some younger ones today, no ambition, they see their father is a postman they follow him, don’t want to try and go beyond. They should study hard and upgrade and move up a little, but don’t want. In Singapore, if you cannot study well, hard to get good job. Here you must try to enter university then at least can earn $3 000-5 000 a month otherwise, how?

In Singapore you must pay for everything. Here there’s no large land area where you can have rice or things, if you cannot earn money then how to survive here? Government helps but again they cannot just give welfare always, we must also help our self. How else to pay for your food, housing and all.

To me health is important. No health you cannot work to earn money. You have money and no health, what for? No point. If you have health, not much money, still okay, can work.

One thing government here helps old people, at least the health and hospital care, they give some assistance to the aged. That’s a good thing.

Also we must respect all religions. Must have tolerance, and we must respect one another and not disturb each others belief. Again in Singapore, people do show tolerance of different religions. We should treat all people fairly, like our brothers, all are our family.

[At this point an Indonesia lady who is a foreign worker here and a friend of Sam’s family and came to visit them asked in Bahasa what the interview was about. She then added her views stating that in Indonesia and in Singapore only the poor help one another. She claimed the rich drive by and look down on the poor and blame the poor for what they are, not understanding that sometimes they can help. She then departed and the interview continued with Sam.]

Yes, I think all is a matter of attitude. Sometimes the rich here don’t want to help. They see poor people as different and separate from them. Must change the attitude. You find that people who have little to give are the ones who want to give, not always those who have plenty. We need more responsibility and kindness in our society. Not enough of it. [He used the Malay term timbang-rasa which means 'sympathy']

Have seen people in accidents and hardly the rich ones stop to help, the ordinary people seem to help mainly. But you must help, we must support each other.

Must be humble, not proud. That’s why I try to make my customers happy. I listen to them and do my best and try to provide service. In the work place must be professional, never mind what kind of work, must be the best, do your best. Younger people the attitude is different, they show they are unhappy and don’t know how to treat customers. That’s why I say, attitude is most important.

Also can’t blame God for everything. We have free choice, God gives us intelligence as humans so must think first, must think before doing things. Singapore now has some floods but actually in this case no point blaming government because it is act of God. But also there are poor people no homes have to stay on the beach. This is also wake up call for government to do more for those people who need some help.

I worry about bringing gambling into Singapore like casinos. People become greedy and try cheat and nothing good can happen from this. You know, I have one customer who works in the security of one of the casinos. He told me that in one day they catch usually 30 people – 30 people, you know – for cheating or trying to cheat. Foreigners and Singaporeans.

People do anything sometimes for money."

 

Anon. (Aged24, university student who has since graduated):

"1. What is your idea of poverty?

Poverty is entirely thought based for me as with everything else. I can be materially rich, but very very poor inside if I'm stingy, greedy, unhappy, etc. Likewise, I can be poor materially, but if my thoughts are calm and I can find happiness -> I'm rich. And sooner rather than later, my world will change to represent that abundance.

2. What is your idea of abundance?

Abundance is also a mindset to me. First in the mind then in matter. It is an attitude of gratitude, etc, etc, etc. That leads to a wonderful life affirming philosophy regardless of the pain that life can bring. Pain is necessary but that does not mean suffering is.

3. Why are people poor/why is there poverty?

This is very complex. I cannot understand sometimes why there is suffering and such debilitating poverty in Africa, South America or even in Singapore with the cardboard mattress 'uncles and aunties' [references to elderly people]. As in life can really be a very very painful sad experience for many people.

Some of poverty is created because of institutions which destroy our birthright to abundance and freedom and prevent information from being made public (that would eventually release our reliance on many things), but also some poverty is individual, just individual laziness, over reliance on governmental subsidies/or external care/support from children/parents, and leeching off of others' work. It's a human problem at the end of the day. And we do create the institutions that are reflective of our human flaws. Until we evolve out of our ugliness, poverty and suffering will continue to exist in this world."

 

Anon. (Aged 58, hotelier, now retired):

“1. What is your idea of poverty? Poverty in my eyes, is when someone does not have a roof over his/her or their head, hardly a job, no utilities whatsoever like electricity and water, unable to have access to decent medical facilities, barely have one meal a day, unable to send their children to school etc.

2. What is your idea of abundance?

Lavish and luxurious living, wastage and use of spending in a vulgar fashion; what I mean is - there is no harm in being rich and able to afford every materialistic need that is considered essential in such an instance. But to waste on lavish parties unnecessarily, (again, not my business) but it is sad to see such living, when the less fortunate can benefit from some of these monies. Perception of "Abundance" could be seen in different ways. In my life, I would pray for good health, and perhaps, my life may seem in abundance to some or of those less fortunate than myself. Abundance is where one does not need to crave for anything else, or have any more wants in life, e.g. a healthy bank account balance, travel frequently with enough expense money, good medical benefits, own luxury vehicles, homes which is evident in most cities in any country. There is so much more that could be added on to what is my idea of abundance.

3. Why are people poor/why is there poverty?

Could be born poor, lazy with no vision or ambition to improve this situation? See how people beg on the streets, when they could easily work in a house as a housemaid, houseboy etc. Just do any kind of work rather than beg!

(I have been a hotelier for 30 years, besides being a sister, sister-in-law, housewife, mother, grandmother, and being a citizen of a country which has an average standard of living...worked hard to do what may be seen as abundance in the eyes of some).”

 

Folks

With the dramatic rise in global awareness of what large corporations and the people behind them are doing to the world and its life forms, more people are asking for drastic measures to be taken against them.

Some of these can be identified in the post and the clip at the end of it, entitled “Nationalize BP”.

Yet it is difficult to deny that in wanting some form of justice, it is easy to get swayed with emotion and ask for extreme measures as well. For instance, asking for capital punishment (no matter how appealing this may appear to some) for those who have wreaked havoc across the globe due to greed and mismanagement may not be the best approach to solve problems.

Recently, a letter of mine to the mainstream media looked at this aspect of things in reaction to the bandying about of the ultimate sanction for reckless driving on roads.

This is an excerpt from it:

“But this does not mean that extending the reach of the hangman's rope for every tragic occasion when there is loss of life, even when negligence is involved, is the way to go.

Would it then be necessary to have capital punishment for when things go awry during medical procedures, sports or military activities, group outings, or in situations where someone offers help only to have things end tragically?

And what about situations involving businesses whose products cause death through negligence: why should they not be subject to capital punishment? Should we also call for the death penalty for the many disastrous and irresponsible things done by large corporations, as in the case of [the] BP Gulf spill? Should the chief executive officer, board of directors or shareholders be held accountable with such severity?

Surely, the statistics gathered for death due to negligence arising from greed and incompetence would register in the thousands.

We need to be judicious in punishments and exercise greater emotional control in difficult situations than merely calling for state-sanctioned executions.”

Which brings us to another question -- what do you do when confronted at long last with undeniable evidence that harm has been deliberately inflicted on people over and above the assumed cause of 'greed and incompetence'.

Putting aside the tendency of some to disregard ‘conspiracy' theories and those who see everything as a ‘conspiracy’, it is not unusual to see many groups all over the planet working together often behind the scenes.

Just think of the international banking cartel for starters.

This could help explain what happens beneath the surface of what is perceived in society and represented (or misrepresented) by the mainstream media (much of which is under corporate control anyway) as 'news'.

I recall a friend and former colleague in the media who said: "But you can't always tell the truth". And the contradistinction of that with the delicate irony of the CIA's "the truth shall set you free" under the guise of cloak and dagger, of course.

Meanwhile, what happens on the surface of society has all sorts of ‘sociological’ or other kinds of explanation for it. Bear in mind all these 'explanations' are just another form of theory to explain away something.

The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote an interesting piece late in life called On the old saw: that may be right in theory but it won’t work in practice. Kant’s focus was on moral theory and naturally, those who criticize it inevitably use some theory of their own. Of course, Kant’s work is much more than what appears on the surface as he brilliantly defends his view of moral philosophy which most of his critics were not always able to effectively bring down as much as they wanted to.

So, there are those who will give random or so-called ‘historical’ and ‘economic’ reasons for what happens in the world such as the causes of war and various economic crises etc. This is not to say that there are no valid historical perspectives nor economic forces that underly what happens in the world.

But it doesn’t take too much of a stretch of the imagination to see that wars have a way of occurring and ending in manners that sometimes belie whatever reasons we cook up for them. The convenience of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism and totalitarianism and their coincidental situation between World Wars I and II can be given as many interpretations as what many others may give as to what exactly is the ‘law of gravity’. These are unfinished scenarios and explanations that are to date anything but conclusive.

For one to say, together with thousands of others, that the truth about the inside job for the September 11, 2001 attacks will be out sooner than later, is not to say anything new at all. There is no credible explanation, except for those who indulge in wishful thinking, as to how three towers collapsed when supposedly two were struck by aircraft.

Nor would those who pretend that we are all alone in the universe and that there has been no contact with extraterrestrial civilizations because, well, 'I haven’t exactly seen one and anyone can imagine stuff'.

Yet curiously, the words "but we can't always tell the truth" and the ironic take on "the truth shall set you free" may almost be transposed from A Midsummer Night's Dream if only it caused as much delight in our subconscious as a Shakespearean comedy.

As for extraterrestrial life, Kant too believed in such a possibility ("I should not hesitate to stake all on the truth of the proposition ... that, at least, some one of the planets, which we see, is inhabited."). Instead of setting it far out in the galaxy he thought it possible closer to home.

The explanation for being alone in the universe is yet another theory that sometimes goes 'if were not alone, why haven’t they landed yet?'

But interestingly enough, a lot of us have even more radical beliefs than what has been written above, in the sense of going to the root cause of things: some of us actually believe in God.

Think about what that really implies.

For those who say what’s surprising about belief in God, one would venture to say that they haven’t had a genuine spiritual experience. But again, for those who claim they have had a spiritual experience, ask them why they then think others have not had other experiences that may prove to them conclusively what some others would prefer to be in denial of.

Many of us show daily just how alive Orwell’s dictum is, that all of us are entitled to our pet explanations but some theories are more equal than others (well, a variation of Orwell). Usually, we mean our own explanations are the accurate ones.

But it will be interesting to see the faces of those who have been vociferously denying many things when the truth of so much finally comes to light and hits the fan. And the question is: to what extent will it be possible to hold back a populace that may be screaming for blood in the name of ‘justice’ real or imagined.

Let me explain: the Nuremberg trials in Germany were a world wide catharsis if you like. The great Mandela’s truth and reconciliation approach kept South Africa together during its post-apartheid phase.

Can people learn to bring in punishment that’s judicious and, shocking as it may seem, even learn forgiveness on a mass scale big time, when the truth about many things corporation-political wise come out for what they are at long last.

Or after all our sophisticated theories, can we only see the enactment of 'an eye for an eye' as the sum total of human wisdom?

That part of our human experience has yet to be written and we will each be actively creating that reality even as we observe it purportedly on the sidelines. Each of our thoughts is a vote for a certain outcome,

And somehow we will have to make it such that the truth does set us free.

Below are two clips from the Zapruder film on the tragic assassination of JFK.

Watch carefully the driver of the car (secret service man), pull out a modified gun and shoot JFK in the head with an exploding bullet, put it back in his coat and hit the accelerator. Don't look at Kennedy, watch the driver.

This is the slow motion clip, and watch at the 49-56 second frames:

We will soon learn the truth of Hamlet's words to his closest friend:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Folks

below a letter of mine published earlier in the year in a local news paper.

Reports say that unemployment in the US is now almost 10 per cent, but rather than just rely on others to do things for us all the time it is time for people to organize and get their acts and ideas together.

But new ideas and initiatives are needed which have to go beyond the old collapsing paradigms. We are not alone in this and we have to act together.

"NOW and again, there are calls to set a minimum wage, which will not solve anything.

Businesses will likely transfer any increase in wages to the consumer via higher prices of products. This in turn will lead to another round of higher minimum wages. Forced higher wages all round will lead to increased liquidity and inflationary pressure on prices.

One of the ideas behind the minimum wage is to ensure that the minimum income is higher than welfare benefits, or other assistance, so as to wean people off welfare dependency. But large private sector industries must answer to shareholders with hefty profits and pay bonuses to top executives.

How will a minimum wage system work around this? It will be manipulated to hire fewer people so a company's wage costs do not rise. And it will mean inflated prices for everyone.

Perhaps we should consider the idea of a fair wage. That would mean looking at new ways to start businesses with government support as well. This can help ensure that people earn enough and the earnings are distributed in a fair manner.

This would involve paradigm-changing approaches such as:

• Collective ownership of a business where all who work in it are shareholders; the Government could have a stake too.
• Apart from regular wages, a system of profit sharing is set up for all who work in the business. 
• There should be no astronomical wages for anyone, and reasonable wages should depend on the nature of the job performed. Perhaps a higher ratio of profits can be given to those whose functions ensure high-end aspects of the profitability and sustainability of the business.
• Apart from regular Central Provident Fund [national savings schemes in some countries] contributions and the like, a certain amount should be retained to be reinvested in the firm and set aside for additional health care, education and welfare benefits. This also prevents excess liquidity from flooding the economy.

This is just a set  of general ideas that need to be extrapolated, improved and tweaked where necessary. But the old thinking that economic issues can be solved with the same system of stock market swings, inequitable incomes for a handful, and sudden unemployment due to so-called 'market forces' will not get us anywhere."

(Please see http://www.inafj.org)