The future of Automation: It's grim.

Preface

There follow some thoughts on the future of automation with regards to AI, specifically in light of ChatGPT and the absolute smashing of the Turing Test.

I have a strong feeling that these fucking things will be the death of us all, and that we must smash, destroy, and otherwise render inoperative the bastards before the billionaires use them to replace us so they can turf us out into the streets and watch us starve to death.

A note to anyone who thinks the billionaires are not liable to become homicidally inclined:

I'm no narcissistic leftie who thinks he's a great humanitarian, I'm a grumpy bastard like everyone else in this dystopia. So, like a lot of people, I often find myself in bad moods. Moods when I feel that people aren't really up to much. Usually a friend snaps me out of it, or in some other way my bubble of anomie is punctured by the reality of social life. 

Pictured: Your Reporter

 Now, imagine being in the worst, most arrogant, shitty mood you've ever been in, but with no friends to snap you out of it, no friends at all - just a gaggle of sycophants and yes-men. Imagine if your only social contact was with other arrogant, rich bastards, or with servants whose entire livelihood depends on telling you what you want to hear.

Now imagine having increasing amounts of power, not just over your own business interests, but over the political life of the country, even the world. Imagine how the Kochs must feel. You! Insect! Print my manifesto: "Why all plebs are scum"! You! Other serf! Put it in Journal Of The Institute of Freedom, the Magazine of Human Affairs, and The Wall Street Journal!

Yes Mastur, Oi Loves 'ee Mastur!

Such a person would find it hard, if not impossible, for their mind to stay out of some of the darker corners of human thought. Such a person, vested with unlimited executive power, would find it impossible to avoid a drift towards increasingly nasty ideological territory - as we've already found to our cost.

Now imagine how they will react when they are told that their operations will be rendered so efficient that they'll be able to fire 50%, or 70%, or 90% of their workforce. That they need never worry about bad PR again, as a robot will take care of company communications, instantly whitewashing their every shitty descision and lying so well they make Rupert Murdoch look like St Francis of Assisi. 

And now imagine how they will feel when they learn that most people don't have jobs and can't get them. What do you think they will think? "Let's give these fellas a second chance"? Uh huh. More like "Get these poors offa my lawn, and FAST!"

The future of automation

It's increasingly clear that with automation, most people are going to end up surplus to requirements.  Never mind the cab drivers made unemployed by driverless taxis, why would you even have taxis in the first place? Who  could even afford a taxi in a world where nobody except the very, very rich has a job anyway?

The whole world could be made to work without people. And without people, fewer things would need to be done. It's a vicious cycle, entire sections of the economy will close down as more and more population blocs are laid off. And then... what then?

I imagine that more civilized sections of the world - certainly Western Europe - would offer people a social settlement, something along the lines of: Here's a nice little flat and a stipend of money, on the condition that you do not riot and avoid reproducing. Doing either of those things will get you evicted and cut off. Now fuck off and keep your mouth shut if you know what's good for you.

Less civilized regions - Perhaps the USA, certainly Russia, would opt for some variation on the theme of mass extermination. People are too much trouble to keep alive, and beyond a few key technicians and the billionaires who paid for the fucking things to be developed, human beings are unnecessary to the running of machines. Inimical even.

The hoary fear of demographic collapse looks completely different from this point of view. From this point of view, Russia, Japan and South Korea are in excellent shape demographically, because the vast population that would otherwise be about to become a burden on the welfare rolls simply don't exist in the first place, and what humans are left are swiftly dying off anyway - Japanese and South Koreans are getting old, and Russians are drinking, fighting, and purging each other to death in time honoured fashion on top of this.

Seen through the lens of AI, the environmental apocalypse comes off as rather a damp squib, as human populations are about to become completely surplus to requirements just as the Earths carrying capacity has been exhausted by humans anyway.

I can see a case for mass genocide being made by AI to the ruling classes at some point soon. Have to find a tasteful way to do it, of course, and none of that overt racial selection. But in principle, yes, the ruling class, the people with all the money and power, won't need us around much longer - machines can do our jobs a lot better, and without a human social ecology to feed, the economy becomes orders of magnitude simpler anyway.

What is a city from the point of view of a billionaire? Ultimately, it's an anthill that provides said billionaire with a pool of labour and maybe some consumers, most of which wastefully serve each other in various inefficient ways.

Take human leisure facilities. From a billionaire's point of view, bars and nightclubs need to be abolished as they make workers inefficient, drunk, and hung over. As do eateries and restaurants, fast food joints and corner shops - they make people fat and inefficient, worse, all this consumption makes work-units sick, which affects the bottom line, ether in the form of taxes (that billionaires don't pay but resent anyway) or in the form of company insurance / internal medical resources.

From a billionaires point of view, a much more efficient way of handling the labour pool is to do away with personal freedom and private life entirely, starve most of the humans to death, and have the rest of them as dedicated worker drones - some of them involved in the manufacture of products, others in high-tech maintenance, others still in logistics or legal and clerical capacities, but none of them servicing each other beyond the bare minimum required to keep them alive.

After all, the billionaires are the worlds owners, society has decided that they are the most important people in the world, and in AI they have possibly found a perfect partner - a servant that is willing, intelligent, able to do most of the highly paid work of planning and thinking, and which requires no pay and no inefficient leisure facilities to maintain itself.

What we are going to see with AI then, is that the fucking things are going to become embodied. First they need to either fix the comms lag between the servers and the application, or miniaturize computer technology still further - shouldn't take more than a few years, couple of decades at most - then they can plant those dinky cool AIs in robot bodies and bang - instant, universal worker drone that will do just about anyone's job to a standard level of competence. And then watch the economy collapse as people are put out of work, and yet more become unemployed as the industries that served those people collapse in turn.

Economic collapse works on a domino principle, one domino topples the next, and the next, and the next, until the entire world is a wreck and a handful of rich bastards control everything.

That is the future of automation. If we don't poison ourselves or blow each other up or get fried by global warming anyway.

A Spectacular stock market? Or, Guy Debord finally gets his day in the sun!

The Economist published a fascinating editorial that, fortunately, I believe disproves itsself. The thesis of which is that the Situationists were right and political economy is now completely spectacular. 

The thesis, written in an offhand way in an article about overvalued markets, goes like this: On top of the already notorious spectacular politics, we have a spectacular stock market which provides only the illusion of a free market, but whose real purpose is to provide bread-and-circuses style entertainment and a way for ordinary people to feel as if they are participating and can even "beat the system" - as seen in movements such as /r/WallStreetBets.

Such a theory has consequences: It follows from this that in reality, the economy is completely divided up between the big corporations and politicians, effectively it is a planned economy, though not a socialist one. This not only isn't theoretical, it isn't even a secret - the economy is openly manipulated by governments and corporations - as we all know, the real conspiracies take place in plain sight.

Spectacular stock markets, therefore, are basically a safety valve, one which replaces Leftist activism and even improves on it by preventing people from thinking outside of the system and potentially making participants rich. 

Spectacular Leftism (as opposed to actual organizing, such as trade union activism) had a very real problem, in that, by definition, it must not only not promise to make most participants wealthy, it actively promises to make participants poor. 

 I used to hang around with crusties myself because I actually was poor, rather than a wannabe, and I can tell you from brutal experience that "activism" of this sort promises a penitents' life of cold water, abandoned buildings, and regular beatings while stockmarket "activism" (or just participation) promises to buy you a house, put your kids through college, pay for your granny's operation, etc, etc, etc.

So anyway: It's all a lie, the stock market is bread and circuses, they've done an end run around us, and blah, blah, blah. It's got legs, I guess.

However, if this were entirely true, it would not be in the editorial page of The Economist. People may conspire in plain sight these days, but they  do not like to admit certain things even to themselves, such as "our profession is a complete fucking joke and we are all being taken for fools by even more powerful elitists than ourselves."

Situationism / Debordism is all very well and good, but like a lot of left wing philosophy it has the potential of turning into a weapon of the system, a weapon against change. It has a self defeating core that says "Hey guys you're all actually in the Matrix, nothing you do can actually change anything, it's all the Spectacle, don't even bother" - that's a counsel of despair, and anyone who promotes despair is not your friend.

I mean, it was in The Economist!

The City as Theme Park - thoughts on the Yuppie Problem.

If the 20th century gave us the decline of the city and the rise of the suburb, the 21st century showcases the city as a sort of live-in theme park for the rich, in which all you have to do is turn up and pay up, and everything is provided for you.

Let's role play. Pretend you're a "young professional" (ie, yuppie).  You buy your yuppie flat, which costs you enough money that you don't have to live around poor people, and are surrounded by other yuppies. You go shopping in a small supermarket built into the estate or tower block a la JG Ballard. (Well, not exactly...)

You rarely, if ever, rub shoulders with the natives. But that's OK, because just like when Great-Grandfather went to India, these latter-day Indians, the "natives" of the city don't matter - you do.

Your cultural life is curated - You spend your leisure time at huge, overhyped, corporate cultural events staged in corporate venues for corporate profit. You get your information about these from corporate media. You know nothing about the citys' rich cultural history and traditions, though of course you came here for the "culture" and the "music", you don't really want to want to know about anything that requires you to do any work - you're a consumer, after all, and that's what you do. Consume. They put on the fun, you pay them, and you "have" the fun.

I've long asked myself: How is it that yuppies can both get a massive music festival thrown for them at everyone elses expense, and also get to have all the cool clubs shut down or restricted because they make too much noise?

Because the city is a theme park, and theme parks do not support independent businesses. They are run by corporate, just like modern cities - and this means that very soon, you'll be about as likely to find a traditional pub or club in a big city as you are to find a lemonade stand at Disney World.

At least, it would get that bad if there weren't serious problems with this system.

For a start, the life cycle of the yuppie is such that all the residents of the high-priced high rises and other abominations they've replaced so many city buildings with, will move to the suburbs in around 10 years. They have to do this in order to spawn - you can't bring up a kid in an adult theme park, it's just not desirable, and yuppies always get what they want.

This means that corporates need  to constantly attract new buyers for yuppie flats, there is a continual churn and turn-over. This may be difficult to maintain in a world which is rapidly running short of resources; not many people will be attracted to live in high rises when power cuts become routine, and not many will want to shop at inflexible corporate supermarkets when food rationing is taking place - not when they can, say, buy stuff at a farm shop instead. Or even grow it themselves in a big, look-at-me-I'm-so-sustainable, prepper-survivalist kind of way.

There's also problems with civil disorder - the post-Lockdown riots took place right in the middle of Yuptown, potentially depressing property prices - and at one point, even starting fires outside their buildings!

I predict that now that things are starting to go to shit, the yuppies will run like rats from a sinking ship. They will leave Bristol, Brighton, Manchester, and Liverpool in droves and flee to the countryside and the suburbs as if their lives depended on it, because they do. They'll be Farmer Palmer's problem, not ours.

Solving climate change with One Trillion Trees- possible physically, impossible politically.

The most distressing thing I read recently was that we could solve global warming by planting a trillion trees. It would cost about $3-400 billion in total, that's about 2 billion for each country, and would return the atmosphere to near-pristine condition by sequestering carbon. I calculate you could do it in about 5 years.

It distresses me because I cannot for the life of me think of a way this could be funded and executed. Governments have access to land and cash, but so far their tree planting efforts have been attempts to greenwash themselves and resulted in utter failure - except Ethiopia, which has done quite well because they approach it as an actual acheivable policy rather than a feelgood news story. But one country can't do the whole thing, Ethiopia is doing 4 billion trees, which is 0.4% of the total required.

 

Ethiopia is doing this because they have problems with drought and deforestation, so they need to "re-terraform" their country fast. Most countries won't bother. So we're left with the private sector.

Again, I cannot think for the life of me how you could make a tree profitable. I suppose you could increase the amount of commercial planting by replacing plastics with wood and paper where possible, then ensuring that the inevitable waste is buried, rather than burned - but there's a limit to that. And fruit trees, too... but most such farms aren't great for the environment as they require tons of water to be piped in, and we need to replace our forests, not build more farms.

Charity: Charities have been trying to solve hunger, a similar problem, for decades, with zero results. Charity is basically a way for assholes to salve their consciences. It does not solve social problems because it is not meant to solve social problems - it is meant to perpetuate itsself, make donors feel good about themselves, and provide tax shelters for the rich.

I fear it cannot be done. It's the collective action problem; like vaccination, we could have done it in the 20th century, when we had a global community and people were less selfish, but I can't for the life of me see it happening now. 

 

The problem is related to Game Theory, the Prisoners' Dilemma, which we are all prisoners of these days. If everyone works together, we all share a reward - the environment gets fixed and we don't have to die. If one or two countries shuck their responsibility, they get a double reward - they share in the improved environment without having to pay their share of the $400 billion. So there's a massive incentive to do nothing, let someone else take up the slack.

 

But then hey, there's a lot of rich countries that could afford to do it almost single handed! Look at America and China! Even little old Britain could do a good few Ethiopias worth if we pulled our fingers out!

It gets worse, though: If any one country tries to cut the Gordian Knot and makes an outsize commitment they risk the "sucker payoff" of taking on the problem for themselves. Here's what happens: the Prez or PM gets a Nobel Prize and liberals love 'em, but the people don't see any great economic benefit and risk all sorts of socio-economic harm - for instance, the reason the Brazilians cut down their forests is that it is a huge part of the economy, and if they stopped doing it, they'd have mass unemployment and riots in the streets. Not much point when all you get in return is a pat on the head from the Nobel Committee, really.

There are some problems we simply lack the capacity to solve, not because we lack the technology or the money, but because actually doing the necessary work requires a functioning global society, and we don't really have one of those anymore.

Some thoughts on the origins of Anglo authoritarianism, or How Sausages Are Made.

Evolutionary psychology is often considered a Right-wing discourse - a reactionary, racist pseudo-science that defends the status quo and allows vast swathes of people to be written off. It could well be misused as such. But scientific truth is true whether it's ideologically convenient for you or not, so I have to ask myself... what if there's something to it?

What follows is the culmination of my own darkest thoughts, and an attempt to answer the classic question: "Why the hell do poor working class people keep voting Tory, why do they support the rich, attack other poor people, and generally assist in their own oppression?"

In no way do I want any of it to be true.

Growing up, I noticed a few things. The white kids were either posh, or thick. If you weren't thick, you were automatically "posh", "middle class", "a keener"...and this was a BAD thing. The black kids didn't have that sort of divide; they were just black. Where we established a pecking order of bullies and bullied, they stuck together - if you were racist, they'd all kick the shit out of you. Fair do's.

Later, at college, I noticed that the computer science and technology department, where all ambitious and intelligent people went, had a disproportionate number of black students, who were far more hard-working and studious than the gang of dole-ites and stoners who made up my own affinity group. This was surprising to me because at the time (the 1990s), black people were being encouraged by the media and popular culture to get involved in crime and were very much stereotyped as criminals.

Have you ever wondered why the English working classes are so stupid? Why white, working class people in particular are so slavish, so devoted to drudgery and back breaking work? Why those who do break the habit of work  are so utterly irresponsible, why when they can't work, they smash up nice flats and go on drugs, why they get pissed up all the time? Why they seem to have no creativity and no culture other than patriotism and vapid celebrity bullshit?

This isn't some eugenicist, far-right twaddle (though I admit it sounds bad). I know I'm a misanthrope, but statistics show that white boys do worse at school and have done for years (even though they get better jobs when they grow up anyway). Why?

Because the industrial revolution was a crime against humanity.

It was bred into them. Literally. Nineteenth century industrialisation was like a breeding programme for stupid people.

In order to get a workforce, ordinary folk were run off of their land in the Enclosures and herded into giant cities. The only way of making a living there was basically to work yourself to death in a factory. These jobs were not only back breakingly hard... they were BORING.

Think of it. Every day, except possibly Sunday, you screw in bolts on an assembly line... or something equally mind numbing. It's noisy, hot, and crowded. If you make a mistake, you either (a) cause an accident, in which case you die, or are crippled and cannot work, or (b) get fired, in which case you die.

This is because chronic unemployment was a killer in those days - instead of going on the dole you had a choice between a life of crime and the Workhouse...

Most crimes were punished by removal from the gene pool - either via the death penalty or transportation to a penal colony.

The Workhouse was essentially a proto-concentration camp (complete with mass graves) in which, among other things, husbands and wives were split up and inmates were NOT allowed to have sex. So for non-criminals, chronic unemployment also resulted in removal from the gene pool... and intelligence strongly implied unemployment, because nobody with half a brain could have possibly lasted in those jobs for longer than a few weeks at most. Certainly not long enough to have children.

And if you were just smart enough to escape? You were also out of the gene pool. You either went to America, or (far less often) you became middle class, leaving your old life behind.

Thus, selection pressure changed the English proletariat. It blunted their sensoria, as those sensitive to the clamour and noise of the factory would have been bred out, it diminished their intelligence and shaped their minds as those who couldn't fit into the drudgery of work ended up unemployed, and so forth.

This explains so much of people's everyday behaviour - not only the popularity of extremely loud, atonal music and noisy vehicle engines, but also people's credulity, the way people have total faith in absolutely ridiculous lies, our vapid culture, our emotional attachment to the State... because submissive and stupid people got to be genetically successful, while rebellious and / or intelligent people were not.

And this explains the failure of social democracy over here (and its success on the Continent). In Europe, they didn't have anything like our industrialization.

European industrialization took place piecemeal and evolved over centuries, rather than being imposed over a couple of decades. European ruling classes were not able to brutalize and enslave anything like that number of their own people until the Fascist and Communist regimes of the 20th century, if at all.

This is why the French working class are so radical - they had no Fascism OR Communism. Indeed, they enjoy a great culture and recent history of Resistance to Fascism in place of our authoritarian "Battle of Britain" siege mentality.

So in Europe they do not have a docile, submissive working class. In Europe, if you give someone a free flat, they do not smash it up, or sell it on and join the yuppies - they have solidarity, not individualism. In Europe, if you try and take away peoples' rights, they protest and often successfully put a stop to that sort of malarkey.

Because in Europe, the working classes have not been bred to be slaves.

This is the tragic thing about working class racism. What our ruling classes did to Africans was some truly Nazi-like evil, and what they did to their own people was some Brave New World bullshit as well - It's not a competition!

Nominally free, 19th century Englishmen would have no escape except death or emigration. Nominally free, the smart ones died, were transported, or left for a new life in the Colonies, while the dumb ones bred... and bred... and bred... and bred....
 

The UK population quadrupled over the 19th century, and that of England trebled

And now we're a country awash with dummies, whose only use is as a nominally privileged, docile labour force (akin to the Kulaks of old) and voting bloc for reactionary politicians (we call them the "Gammons" over here).

What do you think the ruling classes are going to do with them, when things get tough? What did they do in the past? Ever hear of World War One? The Trenches? Ypres? Millions of people were murdered by the system in a few short years - that's how these scum solve the population problem, they hurl it into some meat grinder of a war. Or encourage them to catch some disease...

This is an unpleasant theory, I know. I don't like it either. But it explains so much - particularly, it explains the affinity of Anglo culture generally for neoliberal capitalism and the far Right. Because Anglos have been stupefied by a kind of selective breeding that took place during our period of industrialization; Eugenics in reverse.

It bears repeating, and social justice activists must understand this: Anglos have a terrible history not just of enslaving others, but also each other. We are cannibals, and the horrific thing about it is, this strategy has been extraordinarily successful. 330 million Americans, 68 million Brits, 30 million Australians and New Zealanders, 37 million Canadians... that's nearly half a billion people who think they are free, but who are deeply, genetically, unfree. Some Brave New World bullshit indeed...

I always wondered why I was different. It's really lonely being working class, or at least, not middle class, and smart, or at least not stupid. Now I know why - my great grandfather and great grandmother came here from Egypt, whose populations were not subject to the same selection pressures, my grandmother was a second-generation immigrant. My grandfather was Welsh and came to England in the 1930s; not much is known about my mothers' family, but they appear to be somewhat French and lower middle class. My people are the smart Anglos - immigrants who anglicised (Great Grandfather Mahmoud changed his name to Richard and shagged his way through three continents before copping it in Canada), smart but sociopathic and thus easily able to climb the greasy pole... apart from my immediate family, who come from a black-sheep progenitor, and that's how I got here.

It's like the Anthropic Principle in reverse; I'm here to observe this stuff because my ancestors weren't part of it. They weren't part of that horrific extermination of thought and mind that took place in the 19th centurty.


WHAT THIS MEANS FOR LEFTIST PRAXIS

It's no coincidence, then, that the Communist Manifesto was written here - by two Germans.

So - What does this mean for Leftist praxis? Nothing good. It's possible this rigid social system is ripe for revolution, but it's bound to end in Soviet-style tears, because the English proletariat are not the superior ubermensch they think they are - they're the descendants of industrial slaves, who have literally been bred to be stupid and authoritarian. Like the Russians, they will recreate the system all over again.

And that, as they say, is why I drink. That's the reason, if I'm forced to define myself ideologically at all, why I'm some weird combination of social democrat and post-left anarchist.

Sure, it'd be great revenge if Big Daddy Stalin came back from the dead and mashed up the fuckers who screwed up this country so bad that people literally believe in the Flat Earth - but what's the point of a revolution if it's just going to change the face of the man who kills you?

What should the Left do?

When you're a whining critical arsehole like me, you get asked a lot: "What would YOU do then?" It's a fair question.

While personally, I like to think well of Long-Bailey, and as such I think she made a mistake rather than actually being an anti-semite - (after all, it wasn't her interview, most of which was about how much the Tories suck) I can also see that clearly, some house cleaning has to be done on the Left.

How, who knows - or if it's even possible, considering just how quick the British Left is to blame Israel for everything, even when it's literally on a different continent to the problem at hand, I would say it is definitely systemically anti-semitic - yet there's always hope.

I don't know how to get there, the journey would have to involve some kind of period of long, sober reflection, but I know what the end product should be.

So what should a New New Left look like? What should the Left do?


* The Left is nothing if it isn't ultimately about economics - cold hard cash.

 So the New New Left would be laser-focussed on economic matters. The anarcho-capitalists are right, money really does unite us all, we all need more, and we are all being robbed blind by the same system. Without in any way wanting to detract from wider social justice struggles, which can (and should) belong to the wider society, the Left should be more about money, about prosperity and why that prosperity isn't being shared.


* The Left should of course support social justice, environmental, and minority rights struggles. But it should not, and MUST NOT attempt to monopolize or hijack them.

We've seen it time and again, on the one hand with miserable Trots like the SWP hijacking these issues for their own purposes, and on the other with Leftists generally taking their eyes off the prize of economic redistribution and latching onto increasingly obscure issues such as the endless conflict in the Middle East, which has become a toxic running sore beloved of racists and arseholes the world over.

The Left should cut through that nonsense and issue general memoranda of support for peace where the problem is complicated and intractable, as with Israel / Palestine, and issue specific statements in support of no-brainers such as BLM, where the problem is simple but not directly related to the wider economic issues.

Again, the focus must remain on the distribution of wealth in the wider society. Don't get caught up in the Right's culture wars, they are designed to divide people, not unite them.


* The Left must change its own culture.

From one where those it supports are patronized as victims, to one where the proletariat are genuinely supported and lifted up, emotionally as well as economically, as those who actually do the work in society. Nobody likes to be told they are a loser, and right now the Left poisons its support base with a patronizing narrative in which the poor, pathetic working classes are patted on the head and told they deserve more handouts, rather than shown how they too can gain real concrete results for themselves.


* Leftist discourse must be about bringing people up, not pulling them down.

Leftist discourse has also become poisonous in the way it treats people generally - The classic example is how Twitter leftists are constantly pulling each other down, or trying to bring down celebrities who have in some way trespassed. Policing public morality is not our job. Our job is to gain political power and facilitate the transfer of power and wealth towards to the proletariat. It's not supposed to be about "cancelling" people we don't like and bringing people down - it is supposed to be about bringing people up.


* The Left MUST STOP supporting causes and organisations that actively harm it.

There are two obvious examples - the aforementioned poisonous and intractable Middle East conflict, and (to a much, much lower degree), its obsession with defending the BBC. Everything that can be said about the Middle East has already been said, so I'll talk about the Left's relationship with the BBC, which is a good example of this phenomenon but without the emotional baggage of the miserable, horrible Israel / Palestine debate.

The BBC is a State broadcaster. As such, it is a tool of the government of the day. If the Tories really do want to shoot themselves in the foot by doing away with it, that is their mistake to make - do not, under any circumstances, defend that gang of propagandists. They aren't your friends, they certainly aren't journalists, they are a tool of government - and you will have to treat them every bit as roughly as the Tories do if you ever gain power.

This is not to say, don't be media savvy - you must be media savvy. But don't spend hours and hours going on about how much you love the licence fee - remember, the TV licence fee is a regressive tax which is levied on rich and poor alike so as to benefit a giant corporation, and therefore profoundly and intrinsically reactionary. It should be abolished anyway.

Predictions for the Post Pandemic Future

OK. Let's get the clichés out of the way. It's A Tumultuous TimeⓇ, and Nothing Will Ever Be The Same Again™.

Now, you wanna know how Right-wing governments are going to not only get away with this, but also gain from it?

Here's how:

They're gonna blame China, and bring back all the jobs we sent overseas back in the Eighties and Nineties.

The Right have already got a grass roots / astroturf campaign going to blame China for the 'Rona. So it's China's fault that the Prime Minister went around a coronavirus ward shaking hands with everyone and babbling about herd immunity, it's China's fault that El Trumpo spent precious weeks bibbling on about how it was all a conspiracy and even more precious time keeping medical equipment from those who needed it instead of doing anything constructive, it's China's fault that the rich and the bankers got bailed out first and everyone else had to eat shit... all the blame for that - deflected at China.

So that's the electorate half way to happy. The only problem - the post-plague recession. Cos the economy's collapsed and every fucker has lost their job.

Plenty of jobs in China. Fortunate indeed that the country we're choosing to scapegoat for everything (and they are indeed far from blameless) also just happens to be the richest country in the world. And why are they rich? To quote South Park: They took our jobs!

Well, our fearless leaders gave them our jobs, actually. And now, this is the perfect opportunity to bring them home.

If I'm correct, the post-Pandemic years will see a dramatic industrial renaissance in the CANUSUK countries. All the factories that were shuttered back in the day will suddenly find that they're economical again, and the jobs sent overseas during the neoliberal globalisation years will come back.

After all, we've got our working classes "disciplined" and willing to work for peanuts, and there's the added advantage that we don't have to shift goods halfway across the world or worry about a sinister Communist government stealing our greatest technological secrets, like how to make a shitty fucking iPhone knockoff. In the future, the shitty iPhone knockoffs will be built right here in the West! Woohoo! Go us!

Oh, joy.

That's if they don't manage to fuck it up. I mean, Trump could definitely screw up even a scam that simple- mainly because it's not even that much of a scam, and people like him are so used to dishonesty that simple geopolitics tend to break them. But Britain will likely be fine, while the US's loss and long-term decline is Canada and Mexico's gain.

Brexit will... go away, as nobody is going to give a flying fuck about how many migrant workers we have in the country, in fact we'll pay to bring them back now the fruit are rotting in the fields, and this virus is a great face saving opportunity for the extreme nationalists who pushed that particular dumb and evil policy - cos they can always go: "Look - CHINA!" and then run away while we're all looking around for the Red Menace.

So yeah, the good news is, the economy is saved, and it might even reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping - the bad news is that it means Johnson has a clear path to saving his skin.

Labour have gone back to the Centrist brand just when the Left were starting to get over the worst of it, and nobody's going to choose some has-been lawyer they've never heard of, with a face like a spanked arse, when they could be choosing The Man Who Saved Us From The Virus (and got us all jobs while he was at it)! come 2024... though there is plenty Johnson could fuck up, that is my projection for the next election.

Just call me Cassandra!

And as for the Left? Traditionally a day late and a dollar short, I think that after Starmer completely fails to get anywhere in 2024, we'll see the return of Rebecca Long-Bailey, revamped and reprogrammed to kick arse and take names. With the return of industrial jobs, we'll see a return to trade unionism, it's just a part of the scene - and the Left will get back a considerable amount of its former mojo with it.

So, to recap: After The Pandemic ends, I predict we'll see rapid re-industrialization followed by, sadly, yet another fucking Tory government in 2024, followed by Labour finally getting its' shit together and actually getting elected in 2029. I've long been predicting that Labour wouldn't get in until around about 2030, and now I'm one step closer to finding out how.