The Trial by Franz Kafka (1925)

 Though the heading says 1925, I read a paperback that is "a new translation, based on the restored text". This novel has iconic status, and so is a danger zone for assumptions. It is the well known story of Josef K., who, in Prague in the period before the First World War, is high up in a bank. He is sailing along pretty comfortably when he is accused of.......something, and notified that he has a trial pending. Thus begins a labyrinthine connection to the world of the Austro-Hungarian court system in its Bohemian province. We are slowly taken into his world: the rooming house where he lives, his associates, women he fancies, the posturing and nitty-gritty world of his work at the bank. But interlaced with this picture is the weird new section of life dealing with this trial. The court system is a mystery to him, and to many others who get tangled up in its politics and endless postponements. (Bleak House comes to mind.) He tries over and over again to get clarity in what exactly it is he's accused of. He enlists the assistance of a variety of lawyers, who claim to have special access, or wise experience. All the while he is attempting to not let this innovation cause too much havoc in his other life - wondering who knows about it, and what they might be thinking, or indeed doing, in relation to it. He manages to go to a couple of preliminary "hearings", meeting others in similar situations waiting outside various courts or offices. The strong impression is of yet another human being lost in a cats' cradle which is taking up the time of many. The legal system is so clogged, and unknowable, that these puzzled, weakly strategising people form a significant portion of the population. At this point, it feels right to say something: this novel is often described as "terrifying". Through almost all of its length it is definitely not. It is a grey, surreal world that it occupies. The whole thing feels very much like a dream - with locales and interrelations that have that significant quality. Stairs and passages are windy and tight, looks are intense, moods are vivid, some of the everyday is missing, some emphasised. The over and over of trying to find the right place, the right angle of attack. Every now and then the surreality is more overt - an upper balcony of a courtroom being so low that all its occupants are slightly bending their heads - almost an Alice-like picture. Of course, the other key thing about this is that it is unfinished, assembled after Kafka's death from fragmentary manuscripts. So, the only truly terrifying thing in it, Josef's death, comes in a fragment at the end, where he is knifed by two men who come to his rooms in the guise of functionaries of the court. What Kafka might have done to tie everything together is an intriguing postulation. As it stands, my main impression is of the aforementioned surreal and dreamlike quality, alongside the fundamental psychological impetus of the whole thing. The author references in the most subtle ways the odd shifts and successive impressions flowing through the minds of many of the characters, and particularly of Josef. Sudden changes of mind, recurring obsessions, power-relationships ebbing and flowing, all sluiced through the language of the animus. These elements mix into a powerful atmosphere, a mood of loss of anchor, struggle in a maze, all mysteriously and alluringly pictured in muted colour.

Situation Clarification F

I spoke previously about the setting up of a political party to advance these aims, but I see this as an interim measure, if it comes about. Party politics and the system of which it is a part is part of the problem in a deeper sense.

It’s very illuminating to think about the Westminster system in the light of when it was formulated. Back in the 18^th century, when it started to become what it is now, only a small number of people had the vote, or would be considered eligible to ‘represent’ an area. And of course, largely they were ‘representing’ the interests of key people. General conditions for all people were way down in the mix, if they were considered at all, except by a few reformers. So it was in effect a closed system, maintaining smooth running because all concerned were to some extent part of the same club. Those involved were separated into broad groups, known as parties, who fought with each other for dominance of the agenda. Established within this were almost theatrical mutual conventions, which made the whole enterprise somewhat game-like, a condition which was exacerbated by the predilections and assumptions of those involved.

Of course, where we are now societally is phenomenally different to where we were then. But we have maintained this old system. Now, pretty well everyone has the vote, and our norms have moved on to the point where we at least pay lip service to the notion that everyone needs to be considered. But we still have ‘representatives’ arranged into parties. Inevitably, given this concentration of power into a few hands, and the weight of the history of a so-called virtuous system, there is no obstruction to corruption except personal ethics. And we all know how easily, if we want something enough which comes within reach, a wilful bending of our ethics can occur in order to justify our going after it, despite any negative consequences for others.

The separation of any proposition made to the nation into ‘bad’ and ‘good’, according to party politics, is obviously a poor analysis. We shouldn’t be negotiating any issue like this i.e. only after negotiating the childlike waves in the my side/your side paddling pool. That’s just a waste of everyone’s time and resources.

We should, I feel, think about what ‘representation’ means. At the moment, it’s used as an excuse. “Well, speak to your MP, that’s what they’re there for”. Even though that MP is obliged to follow a party line. Even though that MP may completely disagree with what you’re saying and not be willing to represent that view. Of course it’s also used as an excuse at concept level – “we have a system whereby the people are represented – get out and vote!” as though that really means we have a hotline to the corridors of power, and that a once-every-four-years single decision is somehow “being involved”, “being taken into consideration” at an appropriate level.

Again, a likening helps. In any other sphere, if one was after fullest communication between a large group and a central administration via ‘representatives’, then those ‘representatives’ would consistently need to poll the group to find out what they need to bring to the central table: it would be frowned upon simply to assume that yourself and people like you already had the position. Doing that, one would be regarded as egotistic and dismissive, and deciding the affair before the event, effectively by-passing the process of ‘representation’ in its essence.

So, we probably need some sort of consultative democracy to replace the current system. In parliament, official parties would be need to be banned, though I’m equally sure that, humans being humans, there may well be a strong temptation to form alliances. Each representative (genuine ones, no quotemarks needed) would need to be quite simply a reporter of their constituents’ views. This represents perhaps a more significant change than might be suspected – ‘representation’ becomes literally that, you are a functionary, not a personality. This of course brings up a key point: “but what about what comes out, healthily, in the rough and tumble of argument about a topic?” This is important. I think, though, it needs to occur before the populace are consulted by their representatives. So the arguing through is done not by the representatives, but by those with expert knowledge in any given field. The representatives after all are not in a position to have this expert knowledge. And yet, in our current system, they’re imbued with some sort of magic status which allows them to take on that part. Experts should do expert stuff, representatives should represent, it’s that simple – lodge decision-making practicalities where they naturally live. In this sense, Westminster is ‘unnatural’, and that is why the results are not great.

This posits a different function for Westminster. I don’t particularly see the need for the functionaries who would be called “representatives” to be there. The ones who need to be invited there are those with the skills to represent the different sides of any argument – parliament becomes the forum, effectively. The audience would be those with skills similar to those making the main arguments, and then a leavening of general members of the public, called perhaps by some system akin to jury duty. These ordinary people would be there to do the job of clarification for all, so that things don’t just get pushed through without being clear to the unexpert. And to make sure that the experts aren’t running some assumptions that the general public can see won’t work.

So, to sum up in reference to the first paragraph, any political party created to get these changes happening would have to have its own demise built in. There to get the job done, then goodbye.

Situation Clarification E

 

The underlying pressing point, having put forward this idea of a separate currency, is how to bring it about. Again we require devil’s advocacy – I would imagine by those with legal skills. The reason I say that? It is the requirement of this new system to have a full mandate, right to the top, unassailable. It needs legal enshrinement. So I’m imagining that a court case could well be the way. But are there terms, anywhere in the law, which could accommodate this? I imagine it as a highest-level landmark case, establishing afresh the right of the people to be cared for. If those in power won’t properly supply these needs, then we expect to be able to do so for ourselves, with a set of separated resources. With specific points made about profit-seeking being counter to these needs being met, in other words not a best practice scenario. Alternatively, if there’s another, easier way, bring it on.

It can probably be envisaged as a human rights case. There are, after all, enormous anomalies already in our civilisation as regards these issues. We say that it’s a human right to have adequate accommodation, but in practice we have to afford it, and many are increasingly struggling. We say it’s a human right to have adequate food, but many of us struggle because the money we have for living doesn’t stretch that far comfortably. There is something fundamentally contradictory about the claim of these things being human rights and then not providing them as a matter of course. Making them a reward rather than a right – that’s again a very simple confusion of two ideas, which need separating out into their respective strands for clarity. This human rights issue is a much bigger issue even than the one I’m tackling. But the same principles could well be utilised for this lesser situation.

There’s also the anticipation of commentary at concept level, saying something along the lines of “why do you want to reinvent the wheel? We don’t need the complication of two currencies. Just campaign for pounds to do what you ask.” I would be more than happy to embrace this. I simply am not sure it could be brought about, mainly because the people responsible for guiding the change through are so in hock to profit-associated interests that there would be ‘great unwillingness’ (to be euphemistic) to bringing it about. But it’s good to think about, for sure. Could we create a new political party which has as a clear first principle that the scientific model of economics revealed by Modern Monetary Theory needs to be embraced, the pseudo-scientific one of orthodox economics relegated rightly to history? The only hesitation I have about that would be that it’s asking people to vote for the new operations. In other words, the mandate to do this would have to be fought for amongst all the nonsense of political elections, rather than in the cool of rooms where expert people can strategise.

Simply enacting this superior analysis as the best practice would no doubt engender an objection in some quarters: “but that’s undemocratic!”. This is a matter of how we understand society’s operation: there are many things, after all, in how our world is ordered, for which we have not voted. They are decided upon by people with skill as the best means of attaining a goal – that’s what all those government departments full of civil servants were designed to do, after all. As much as it would be good for us all to vote on everything, it’s not very practical. (Spoiler – there might be a way. More later.)

If we understand that our society’s economics needs to be seen in a different light which represents a more fact-based scientific approach, we are understanding that this represents ‘best practice’ and clearly should be followed by civil servants anyway, as a matter of course. It shouldn’t require our voting to do so. (This of course brings up a recognition of its own about the reason for the original comment: there’s a high likelihood that the idea of this change needing electoral imprimatur represents more than anything a wish to have it stymied: “let’s, through a typically ‘pseud’ embrace of high principle (“democracy”), make sure this gets kicked into the long grass” – your classic political shenanigans. The thing would be to be alive to this, and make sure it doesn’t happen.)

Two basic takeaways at this point:

1. Public purpose enterprises should be non-profit, as this is clear best practice

2. Orthodox economics is pseudoscientific, and needs replacing with a better model