This is where we see the critical assimilation and fusion of the ideas discussed into a new paradigm. The political constructivism of Kant veers away from that of Rawls. We will extend and synthetically a priori construct ideas that grow from Kant’s PPR and see how this also tends to fit and explain some radical political theories. The critical perspective taken from PPR will show that Kant’s ideas would dovetail with that of Marx and certain anarchist thinkers. It would also give clarity to some aspects of radical thought in the 20^th century and into our time as well, and open up space for further theorizing.

Kant’s political heteronomy

Based on the political ideas of republicanism, legalism and constitutionalism grounded on reactionary defence of the status quo, it is hard to see even superficially how Kant’s thinking here could bring forth autonomy. In fact, his entire political edifice rests on not only obedience to laws but of unquestioning acceptance of them. It makes a mockery of his critical philosophy. His political ideas are heteronomous in that they insist that people need external force, constructs and guidance in behaving themselves and doing what is right, and this can be further detected through Kant’s insistence that:

• There is a hierarchy that must be obeyed
• Without laws man is uncontrollable and cannot regulate or discipline himself at all
• That humans cannot be trusted to rely on morality and need external coercion to be good
• The contradictory but convenient conflation of obedience to laws made by man and duty to moral laws that supposedly come from within, and so the supervenience of external laws over internal imperatives  
• That only heads of state and the state apparatus can dictate what is best for everyone
• That only legislators and members of the state apparatus know what is best for everyone
• That strict linearity of logical extremism is the answer to the world’s problems
• Statism and the fetishization of its laws lead to a kind of transcendentalism that transmutes into transcendence and thereby mysticism
• Even unjust social contracts must be obeyed for the sake of obeying statist constricting notions which substitute inner motivation for external compulsion, such that everyone is forced into agreeing; it is a matter of expedience and what keeps one’s head intact instead of removal by Statism and Authority
• There can be no form of resistance or rebellion even if it is morally driven as all must be subject to obeisance to statist imposition of laws
• That ideas of a social contract are a priori and therefore a good thing as implicitly all such ideas are
• A fatalistic approach is needed and one accepts one’s lot in life, and injustice and tyranny are justified by a set of legal documents

Even the form of a law, as Kant explains in CP, provides a restraining influence on moral drives which are best expressed as maxims that are generated from the moral grounds of the free will of each person. So laws as such are heteronomous and do not encourage moral growth and progress due to their inherently stifling/restrictive nature.

Interestingly, in the CR the natural laws produced via synthetic a priori speculation help give the basis for knowledge and making epistemic claims about the world. However, this approach is anathema for practical reason which seeks discipline from moral expression of the individual that can be harnessed as an imperative force for societal co-creation by people. The heteronomous nature of laws is what distinguishes it from practical reason and its moral constructs.    

Kant’s political autonomy

The political autonomy of Kant is fused, of course, with his moral imperatives. Practical reason, the essence of pure reason, expresses itself in what we ought to do to be worthy of happiness as we avoid expediency and self serving interests at the expense of others. So anyone acting from reason as such would do so with moral interests in mind. Thus, based on the earlier discussion, Kant’s political autonomy would maintain that:

• Citizens and those representing them would do what is concomitant with the moral drive
• All members of a state or society would act on the moral imperatives and maxims that guide them irrespective of consequences (would be congruent to highest good of all)
• Doing what is right and not what is expedient is an act of freedom and the expression of our free will as autonomous beings
• The essence of humanity is freedom and this means freeing oneself from constraining constructs and laws that are inevitably heteronomous
• In order to be free we will live in a manner that keeps us in balance and as far as possible unshackled from heteronomous limitations
• To act reasonably and be as free as possible from the physical limitations of the phenomenal world, as well as make our lives intelligible, we must act morally always
• Yet the physical world can be changed to suit our moral force if we all act together as representatives of the supersensuous source of things, or noumena, which further expresses itself through free will and its moral grounding 
• We will all act and create what are the right, just and compassionate socio-economic-political structures as they are an expression of our moral centre as rational beings, and this is how moral imperatives imprint themselves on our co-created world
• We create what is for the highest good of all and this emanates from the moral centre of the universe which is also anchored within us (just as we are centred within it)
• What we believe from our free will to be right and for the highest good of everyone should be the societal and economic processes we must abide by and develop
• We are moral legislators of our world and we decide what is best for ourselves and our society from that which comes from our moral consciousness
• We are therefore empowered beings who do not and should not rely on external laws and incentives to divert us from expressing ourselves as members of an empowered society and world
• Human beings are an end in themselves and are of spiritual import that makes us and our moral expression beyond measure; we are indeed Immeasurable
• Fear must not be a stumbling block in realizing the human (noumenal/supersensuous) ideal of realistically living out our moral expressions through better lives and a better world for all

All this entails radical theorizing which tells us that from the root cause of what makes us humans grounded in morality, we would eschew those political institutions and their representatives, politicos, the State and its apparatus misaligned to the moral ground; these are but the epitome of restriction and heteronomy. As Kant says in the CP quote above, heteronomy is “…opposed to the principle of obligation and to the morality of the will” and so anything that is forced on us relieves us of any duty or obligation to it, as it is against morality itself. For we should only obey what we believe to be right for the highest good of all, and these are maxims taken without compromise and are an undiluted expression of the supersensuous in its moral grounding in the world.

To continue with the old paradigm that survives today in its form of feudalism-capitalism is the high end of heteronomy in our world. It needs to be resisted and dismantled as the direct expression of our autonomy. And our autonomy is the source of radical thinking and the ideas that coalesce from it – that is, the imperatives and maxims that manifest through PPR to create the forms, processes and models of distributive justice that are congruent to our moral centre as human beings.

Practical political constructivism

So where does all this leave us? If we extrapolate Kant’s political constructivism we would see that defying reactionary tendencies, as well as authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorships, fascism and feudalism (and the capitalism linked to it) are the basics his PPR would entail. It would also, as a positive thesis, evoke ideas of egalitarianism, sense of justice and fairness, compassion, rectitude, selfless service; speaking, standing and acting out one’s truth and showing moral courage in the face of adversity, danger and death. Kantian PPR would, therefore, fit with radical political theorizing.

All this would be a synthetic a priori extension and creation of Kant’s PPR via his practical political constructivism, or Kantian political constructivism/Kantian constructivism.

It seems that political theories and ideas that would appear a natural fit generated from Kantian constructivism would be socialism, communism and its variants (e.g. Marxism-Leninism), anarchism and various other combinations emanating from the creative energies of people transfused with practical reason. Thus, it can be said accurately that the political trend and constructivism that would naturally evolve from Kantian ideas would be those that could be broadly defined as that of a social economy. It is about empowered people and communities.

A social economy would thereby have characteristics that would include communities based on egalitarian principles which promote empowerment of the individual and the group. There would be active citizen participation in policy creation of a society or community. Representatives elected, where deemed necessary, would be indeed representatives of people and not politicians (whose participation in politics is usually a career option). What would be needed is PPR expressed in the formulation of Green and people friendly solutions and policies that do not need Statism and its repressive representatives, apparatus and laws. A social economy would diverge from all forms of heteronomy and abide by autonomy.

The obvious objection is how could an empowered society be possible, when man leads a Hobbesian life of nastiness. Well, heteronomy has been the perennial so-called solution that has been tried in all its extreme forms and the results have been catastrophic: It is a wonder we still exits as a species. It is a greater wonder that the planet hasn’t died on us. The alternative is to try and develop autonomy as far as is humanly possible. It can be tried in a transition phase from the current restrictive paradigm of heteronomous Statism and the corruption it brings, where everyone is either rewarded/bought through money or the threat of punishment.

This idea of radical empowerment and that we can create the world of our choice is shown in these words of Kant as mentioned earlier, that we can “…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.” And so as rational beings we would strive for a moral society and this would be the ideal and the model we would naturally work towards in that we do not have the goal of a specific society which then may place ideological (heteronomous) restrictions on what we need to do.

Instead, we work towards our social economy and moral realm in the way that it will be what it is meant to be so as to make us worthy of happiness in serving the highest good of all life and the planet. This would then be an assertion of our autonomy and free will grounded on morality that is a defining characteristic of being human. This we achieve through PPR and the political constructivism it entails.

An example would be Marx and Engels's idea of Communism. They call it a goal but it is actually an open ended ideal which is the receptacle of our wishes for the highest good of all. To attempt to define it not only makes it sound utopian, but sets it as a goal to work towards and that makes it heteronomous. That is why, aiming for a specific goal can be damaging to the process in which we strive to attain it. What happens is that we insist on empirical validity in the forms of fixed measurements and specific structures/outcomes to be in place (that becomes the goal in itself) to prove realization of the goal; and people and resources become a means to an end. We sneak in utilitarianism even without intending to.

This does not imply that no form of measurement be used at all within the process of things, as it would be impractical and a block to moving forward. But it does imply that having an end goal that in itself must be measurable and used as the specific set of parameters to decide that the said goal has been achieved, is heteronomous and ultimately self-defeating; and it is damaging to moral evolution and autonomous expression along the way.

It is no wonder that the quest for creating a so-called ‘Communist state’ (a self-contradictory notion) has ended up in disaster. It is also not surprising that Marx and Engels, among others, could never with much clarity describe their exact vision of Communism as it is not meant to be a specific entity to be realized. Rather, it is a term that can be used to describe the use of PPR and Kantian constructivism as an expression of autonomy to do what is right by people in co-creating what is for the highest good of all. It is a never ending process of growth and evolution. The only end goal is to keep doing what is for the highest good of all; it is, therefore, practical reason in action (or PPR in this case) – for it is directing/directive in nature and not constitutive or regulative.

Due to the constructivist nature of this process of PPR, the ground activities of people based on moral imperatives, will feed up into the form of formulating workable socio-economic- political principles that are evolving; and that will ensure the ideas adopted are suitable for people to use so as to realize in the most pragmatic manner that which is for the highest good of all. Therefore, the entire process is grounded in what can be achieved and parameters are stretched as the moral drive shapes the way we choose to lead our lives in the world. This process of ground up adjustment of principles to be used to enact our co-created social economy would be called reflective equilibrium by Rawls. And this would apply to Kantian constructivism as well. 

So the co-created moral realm and society of Kantian constructivism demands nothing less than trying to create a realistic utopia and thereby work towards viable and feasible results. This is nothing to do with some ‘do-gooder’ altruism but rather taking the road rarely travelled, and finding our way forward as a species in an attempt to create a new earth. We will need to not only have collaboration between ourselves and various communities, but with other states-in-transition that work towards trans-communal cooperation and assistance.

This transnational group or community of people is akin to Kant’s transcendental idea of a ‘state of peoples’ mentioned earlier. Such a transnational community in its coagulating form will be the driving force of a state-in-transition. The latter is an evolutionary process that will see it move into the dismantling as such, or ‘vanishing/withering away’, of the state and its apparatus; the obverse of which would be the firming up of transnational communities as a social group unit of peoples. This would form the bedrock of radical political ideas some of which we can better appreciate in our moment in history, as they are manifested via the shifting tectonics of change occurring in the Middle East, Europe and as evinced by the Occupy movement in the US.

As for states-in-transition (towards an empowered society/community), the sharing of newly developing technology and non-monetary trade will assist and move us out of trade imbalances (debt forgiveness is a given). Stabilised currencies pegged to precious metals and the use of complementary currencies can assist transition societies towards constructing from the ground up what we want ourselves, communities and world to be. We would also have to channel resources towards good people coming out with the right ideas to solve our problems through citizen assemblies, work/idea groups and legislation that reflect our moral drives. Societal legislation will reflect autonomy and that can be changed not due to expediency but what is deemed to be right in our evolutionary process of growth as moral beings in a moral-centric universe.

And Kant, at the prime of his life and mental prowess, would have demanded nothing less -- but possibly much more.

The Economics of Abundance

If duality seems to be a central problem of human nature, how are we exactly going to change that? It seems that we may have little choice but to deal with changing it or at least making a serious effort at it. The current problems of the economy, apparent shortage of fossil fuels and environmental issues coming to the fore will necessitate, it does seems, an entire re-look at how we intend to lead our lives.

Some assumptions need to be made here. That the inability to squeeze more oil out of where we choose to squeeze it out from is going to lead to more scientific research on alternative energy sources, which is happening right now. For instance, perhaps the means will be found to harness not just solar and wind power, but the power that comes from the tides that rise and fall all the time. Turbines under seas and means of converting, storing and transferring such power could provide a serious alternative to fossil fuels.

Also let me further clarify what I mean by Scarcity and Abundance. The term scarcity was used in an economic sense earlier, but the mention of duality was meant to focus on a more esoteric sense of the term. With duality and a sense of mistrust we build among ourselves, we convince ourselves of lack and scarcity which is only reflected in our economics. This is not to say that fossil fuel is limitless and we can go on using it forever. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case. But when we live in a state of competition with everyone around us thanks to the Triumvirate among other things, we live in scarcity of what we can gain from life around us.

Abundance here means a mindset change that will lead to a change in the way we do economics which should lead to an economics that focuses on abundance. And that is looking at what is not only immeasurable in the im0 sense of the term, but what is truly Immeasurable or Im0.

Let's ask ourselves, what exactly is the value of the earth, the water, the plant and animal kingdom, and the human life on it? Is there really a $ value to this? Whose currency are we using? Is this a fiat currency whose value is less stable than that provided by the game money of a Monopoly set? Does this value vary? Can it ever be fixed? Who gave us this planet anyway? Are we just here by accident and so we can do whatever we want, to whomever we want, however we want? Does the concept of stewardship and passing on the world from one generation to another in better condition, or just as good a one, from when we inherited it make any sense?

What is being suggested is to look at one possible scenario. As more of these ideas come to the surface it is easier to interface with them and to put it this way: a more community driven approach is what is needed, and that is probably what we will be forced into anyway.

Part of this involves looking at a new currency system as mentioned in posts recommended above. It would also mean a way of looking after people and societies belonging to low income groups in a sustainable manner, as opposed to just giving aid or charity, or hoping they will die off with as little inconvenience as possible. One direct link to this concept of social businesses can be found here:

Social Business

This will also call for greater use of local/new/complementary currencies. Another direct link:

Complementary Currencies

This would take place within a broad political framework as envisioned by the great political philosopher John Rawls. His vision is for a political conception of justice in democratic societies. A link to help see more of Rawls's ideas in detail:

Justice as Fairness

What these ideas allow for is to try to lessen the view of duality of ourselves and to see ourselves as One. This is a hard call, but no less difficult than problems we are heading into. My point is, for those who don't believe in altruism and the like, learn to accept the fact that we may not have a choice but to work with one another closely, which may be bad news for the cynics out there.

It is interesting to note that a film like The Dark Knight addressed some of these issues. For those who saw the film, you will remember the ending when different boats of people (one full of convicts) had the choice to blow the other up so as to save themselves from all being blown up by the Joker (played magnificently by Heath Ledger).

Sorry for the spoiler here, but duality and the mentality of scarcity almost led each boat to blow the other up, yet somehow neither did so. And Batman, of all people given his issues and complexes, says that people are capable of much more than just survival instincts that have been ingrained into them.

But going beyond the movie, there needs mention of the ideas from a fascinating thinker -- Georges Battaile. In his masterpiece The Accursed Share, Battaile talks about how economies are driven by exuberance and waste. A rich economy or the very wealthy exemplify this by being wasteful and extravagant to show that they can afford to destroy surplus. The ultimate capital accumulation devaluation as Battaile himself concludes is the destruction of humans via war (for example), and that is because that ‘surplus' human being can be ‘wasted'; hence, that particular human is becomes the accursed share.

This resonates with Marx's notion of how capital leads to the contradiction of devaluation and destruction of itself and all that it requires to keep itself going. This in turn rests on the fundamental view of duality between us and others that engenders the exploitation of the world and one another.

Battailes raises another important point. If there is scarcity around, how is it that we have population explosions or life coming into being. There is, if anything, a great deal of energy and exuberance around the planet and in life forms. There is plenty. There is abundance.

We simply choose to believe otherwise and to live in duality from others. With the belief of scarcity and competition (reinforced by 3BGs) we exploit, abuse and waste resources as a result of following a system of capital accumulation and devaluation

What we need is balance.

If, as this thought experiment goes, we do see ourselves as One. Then in a community form of living within the context of our larger society, country, regional grouping, the world, we will start trying to build collaboration and trust. Some of these ideas are eloquently explained in Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future by Bill McKibben.

In terms of the new kind of money we can use, there are complementary currencies used in the form of time banks. For instance, people do services and give things to others in exchange for other services based on the time they log in which is generated into a form of points/currency. So some people may car pool and someone does the groceries for a neighbor, in return for someone doing their laundry or cooking a meal.

In terms of straight forward barter, a couple I know in England exchange the local produce from their backyard for produce from their local grocer.

As things in themselves are im0 and in the greater scheme of things Im0, barter exchanges, time banks, and complementary currencies as means of value, use value, and exchange value make complete sense, and are non-exploitative. There is no surplus value being skimmed off, as what is being done is largely from goodwill and cooperation.

But many have questioned this idea of goodwill, and one person told me that goodwill is not the answer because in the ‘Real World' that's not how things work.

Well, we are all still awaiting for someone who actually is the expert on the ‘Real World' to help solve the world's problems. My counter query to the ‘Real World' exponent was if he fell down on the street and needed help to get up because he was injured, would he ask for help? Or did he think that in the ‘Real World' no one would bother?

The answer was since it had not happened to him, he could not know but he knew many instances when people wouldn't bother to help others (presumably because they were answering to the dictates of the Triumvirate)...and that's in essence the ‘argument of the Real World'.

Yet, everyday, we manage to get by with our difficulties because many times people just decide to try and be decent about things. Amazing, but true. A community that sees itself as One, and a society and world that see itself that way, can slowly but surely edge past the Triumvirate which is in its state of final decline and move onto a new paradigm.

Perhaps, to the ‘Real World' enthusiasts they may grudgingly accept that if for no other reason than to survive, we will have to make a move towards community living and use different ways to measure progress.

This will make us see that if we do not rush and want MORE all the time, that there is such a thing as enough, that there is such a thing as balance; and that people who have had enough of the way 3BGs have been doing things will take advantage of the coming economic difficulties to demand from their leaders that things have to be done differently, and a new way of thinking can be brought into place if only it is given a chance.

It will be rightly pointed out that perhaps I have not given enough details here about what this Abundance really is and I would humbly agree to that. Perhaps we are still some way off from things like genuine trust, neighborliness, mutual respect and consensual agreements in deciding things; where people and the environment are given a priority and go beyond mere $ measurement, because the human species and the planet it lives on is Im0 in value. Pehaps that's because we are in the process of creating it and we haven't gotten there yet.

But I would also point out this parallel. Many never could have imagined the depths of suffering and horror that people could live and survive through. Yet the species has gone through innumerable wars, concentration camps of all types and tortures of the vilest sorts.

Is it so hard to imagine a human resilience in a reverse situation that goes onto a different paradigm where the horrors are a thing of the past and, while there will still be some fighting and differences among people over various issues, we start to live with a sense of justice and fairness, of balance, of community; and in the good that comes from this a mindset of Abundance, and an economy that finally reflects it.

To all the nay sayers I have only this to add for now.

Has it ever striked you as strange that we live on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy in constant motion in a Universe that is Im0 (which may be just one of multiverses as science now reluctantly admits), while many still think that the purpose of the human race is to make more Coca Cola and bombs?

It takes a certain kind of Ego to think the Universe revolves around us.

The Copernican revolution was meant to show us how wrong we have been, and we still are.

It is time for us to try something different.

Link: RFK on Vietnam War

hi folks,

Part of changing mindsets of people for the better is to change the way the economy works, and how we view and live in it.

We can do this when each of us does our part in spreading some form of good work.

There are new ways to measure and view economic growth beyond GDP. What's missing are things like GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) and even GNH (Gross National Happiness).

This is not to say that GDP does not have its uses. But it is a highly inaccurate and misleading way to capture growth and success in an economy.

A GDP valuation includes all money generated by a country including for eg, the cost of a war, car accidents, oil spillage etc.

This means that rather than reflect what is a 'plus' in the ledger, the GDP includes all 'minuses' as well (ie, money lost and spent on wasteful and harmful activites).

For eg, if you have your own firm and you factor in all the money you earn at the end of the month. Then you minus all the debits you have from it, like maintenance costs, cost of education and food for your children etc,

Whatever's then left from your earnings is your profit. That's common sense.

But a GDP, believe it or not, takes all your earnings and expenditure including your minuses and rolls that up to a grand figure and says thats what an economy has made. It's counterintuitive because you shouldn't add your losses as growth, but economies do that. Which is why most growth indicators are misleading.

Expenditure is not equal to growth. Growth is much more than dollars spent/generated.

That is why you can have GDP growth but unemployment/or marginal employment (because you can grow a GDP by expensive govt projects which is not the same as getting people decent jobs that allow them to lead a decent life).

Web searches on this and on "Green Economy" will help put many of these things in context. Many of these ideas can also be gleaned from Economia by Geoff Davies and The Economics of Happiness by Mark Anielski

Check out: http://www.anielski.com/

Countries like Bhutan use the GNH, and local and even the federal govt. in Canada now use GPIs.

The GPI captures the quality of life. That is what economies are really about.

How it is done is basically to have a plus and debit system for an economy and you do the right thing by subtracting the negative effects of losses to the economy and their negative impact: like building more cars, and creating larger roads to contain them, or demolishing green spaces and community areas for larger shopping malls and more $ banks, or a greater armament industry.

The GPI can be used together with the current GDP as a better and fair basis of capturing economic growth.

One of the measurements used in GPI, and not in GDP calculations, are activities that are not given monetary value but are nonetheless of great value.

For eg, a value is given to what a stay home parent contributes, to social and volunteer workers' contributions, to social and community contributions by companies, or activities by civil and civic society.

If a person takes time off work to look after an ailing parent or family member, or even a good friend, this may be added or captured by GPI.

This is part of the pluses added to the GPI calculation.

If a society becomes less gracious due to rapid urbanisation and harmful economic competition, this would be captured as a minus under GPI.

Studies have shown that since the end of WW2, while the GDP has grown greatly in the US (for instance) its GPI has eroded drastically.

Which explains why material wealth doesn't equate in many people's view to genuine wealth and what gives meaning to their lives.

And on the innovative use of cooperatives in this scheme of things check out Emilia-Romagna in Italy which also produces apart from fine food, wine, the automative industries of Ferrari, Ducati, Lamborghini, and Maserati (perhaps they might go Green...?).

Part of the need for a new economy is due to the failure, increasingly evident, of our current debt based monetary system that is now reeling from corporate malfeasance, priorities given to the banking industry and a near collapse of financial loan institutions: the fallout of which the US and many other countries are starting to face now.

Witness the recent desperate rate cuts by the US Fed and the buying of stakes by Singapore's sovereign wealth funds into international banking organisations -- all a result of a failing debt based economic system.

This impacts all of us: that's why mainly middle class people find that they all have to work harder, longer, get more depressed and stressed and still find that the genuinely rich get only richer, as everyone else slides into more debt, poverty and frustration.

Never mind the lower income groups who are desperately trying to find just breathing space.

The imbalance of things, and unacceptable level of inequity that the current debt based economic system generates is ruining our quality of life.

Part of this has to do with the monetary system we have: eg, a debt based system in which banks issue paper money based quite literally on nothing. They actually do create money out of thin air.

The monetary system of debts and interest rates only create the economic slavery that all hard working people (and increasingly unemployed people) find themselves in.

One of the things we need are interest free banks.

Check out: Anielski Report

Another way is to also start a split barter system where money is used but in a limited form. These ideas can be read up on and I believe Emilia-Romagna uses some form of this system.

Many thanks for your time.