HOME Monday 4 September 2000

A grey day. The sky is a blanket of cloud, varying in shade from almost coal-black to a dirty white. The colour in everything is muted and tired-looking. In this limbo weather, even the birds stay silent, except when they are quarreling. Has anyone ever written poetry about this kind of weather? Is it possible to find inspiration in the uninspired? Bright sunshine and bright colours, yes. Really dark weather with lightning, pouring rain, hail or snow, yes. But a sort of grey, lifeless soup ... ?  How would one begin ...?  If this is eternity, I know why time was made.  In the sunless heat there is no shade within the shade.  Infinity without change means there can be nothing new,  Nothing to aspire to, nothing ever to do.  Words cannot express it, the grey hours of the soul,  Neither despair not hope exist in the never-ending whole.  Life floats on the surface, as on a pond, the scum,  Wasted lives and thinking, waste is the total sum.  It is really better to stop here, before I write something that will take over from Wiliam McGonagall's verses, as the worse poetry ever written. Better to go back into bed and wait for the weather and mood to improve.

Sunday 10 September 2000

I think someone or other, in some place, or other, has said, or wrote, The natural state of the universe is chaos. Now I'm not too concerned with the universe at large, just a tiny portion of it, the human segment. At the beginning, presumably, people went about, doing their own thing, taking what they wanted and not having too much concern about what other people might need. The mé féin principle ruled. The strong, of course, got the lion's share, while the rest got the coyote's.  After a time, the coyotes got sick of chewing on bones and being thin and shaggy, while the minority lions prowled around, sleek, glossy and fat. They looked at the situation and discovered that they outnumbered the lions by about ten to one. On principle, it seemed that ten coyotes ought to be able to bring down one lion, if they were prepared to suffer the loss of two or three members in the process. The odds looked good. (None of the coyotes pictured themselves as being the expendable ones.) So, the next time the lion had made his kill, the coyotes moved in straight away. They proposed sharing to the lion, who, through a mouthful of flesh, told them to stuff it, and turned his behind scornfully on them. The next moment, he experienced a severe pain in his behind, and in his legs and in his back and in his neck. He roared fiercely, but the coyotes stayed away from his mouth, so he could not get a grip on them. Finally they had him on his back and one of them was aiming to take a large bite out of his throat. "All right, all right!" the lion roared. "I'll share, you stinking, scruffy bone-bags." The head coyote stood before him and said "Those are not the words of conciliation. You would do well to modify them." He took a sharp nip out of the Lion's throat. "And if you are thinking of attacking us while we are feeding, then let me remind you that you may get one or two, or three of us, but the other eight will get you. Remember that." Self-preservation is a top priority, even with lions. And the lion remembered it, although he had to be reminded a few times. And so everyone had good meat to eat.  That, perhaps, sums up the human experience. The weaker majority banded together, so that they equalled the minority strong. It was for this that communities were formed and systems of government invented. And all would have been well, had it remained merely a matter of physical strength or weakness. It was when some people realised the power in superior intelligence, that society really began to fragment. Physical strength and physical weakness were like black and white, easily understood by everyone. But intellectual strength and intellectual weakness were like a vast swash of millions of colours, barely distinguishable to some, indistinguishable to others and only completely distinguishable to the few computer-brains. Too much had to be taken on trust and too few of the computer-brains were trustworthy, not because they were computer-brains, but because they were human. And the weakest part of all humans is their morals.  And so we have the situation today, that no matter what system of government, or collective responsibility, is chosen, it always works less than perfectly, because it is formed from morally imperfect people. The obvious answer is to form some system that does not depend on the people being perfect, or, that being impossible, one that is less open to abuse than any present system.  There are two systems that I have thought of over the years. One is, I think, feasible, the other more of a pipe dream, given the importance of money in today's society, where it has, ridiculously, become an object of desire almost for itself. I don't claim that any of my ideas is original. There is no use in trying to pretend I'm a brainbox. My mind likes to take its time (with plenty of lunch breaks – off to the canteen for some P.G. Woodehouse and Saki, followed by desert of Billy Bunter and William).  System One is based on the observation of the way political parties behave. Everyone knows that, in a political party, the individual comes first in his own estimation, the party, which got him his position and holds prospects for his future, comes second, the people of the country come third, and it's a third away down the field, with no hope of catching up. People are only there to give him votes. They have no other purpose in life, as far as he is concerned. Sometimes, of course, he has to do them some good, to prise their votes from them. But most times, it is enough to simply pretend he is doing something. Some people have short memories. Others have a desire to believe the system is working, even if it isn't working for them. More believe that this is the best system available, mainly because the politicians keep telling them so, and they believe it, because the effort of contemplating a change of system is too much to sustain.  All right. So the multi-party system doesn't work, because the parties are interested only in power for the parties rather than the welfare of the country. Such a system couldn't work. What about a one-party system? With the hindsight of what went on in the Soviet Union for decades, it is obvious that doesn't work, either, for much the same reasons. The party and the people are separate and have separate objectives. Has a no-party system ever been tried? I am not talking about anarchy, here, but simply of independents only being allowed to stand for election, no parties or groupings being allowed. It would work this way:  Firstly, to keep it simple, say there are 100 positions available in government. Thousands of people put themselves up for election (without having to pay deposits, by the way – surely that is undemocratic in a supposedly democratic society), and the hundred with the highest number of votes wins, by use of either the straight vote or proportional representation. (Again PR is preferred, as making sure that the choices of a wider number of people will be elected.) Now, those elected will sort it out among themselves who is to have what jobs. And for five years, or so they run the country. All of them will do their best to do the job well, because they know that if, at the end of their term, they have not performed satisfactorily, then it is unlikely they will be re elected, because there is now no party to assist them with the party vote. After a few terms, only those with proven ability will be running the country, and when someone superior comes along, he will not necessarily be debarred from being elected. That is System One.  System Two. The pipe dream. Abolish money. Let a country produce all the goods it needs for its citizens welfare and comfort. Some people would grow and process food. Some would make clothing. Some would manufacture the machines for doing this. Some people would make televisions. Other people would make computers and medicine. There would be teachers and doctors, nurses and vets (No lawyers or psychiatrists or bankers needed, thank you!) and road sweepers. Whatever needed to be done could be done, and everyone would have the services they needed without paying, for everyone would be able to draw whatever they needed from common stores. No one would have wealth they didn't need and no one would have to live in poverty. For all this to happen, though, a powerful change of mind in the majority of people and politicians is necessary. Alas! The spirit is willing, but the will is weak.