IGAF: Dystopia

This IGAF (Is Goodness a Fashion) series explores, from a non-expert point of view the social, economic and narrative ramifications I see developing from the COVID-19 crisis, worries, but also hopes for a future that the current shock to the system may result in.

I very much doubt that the COVID-19 crisis will be the cathartic moment that enables a better future for this world as a whole. Take note that most of this writing is happening over the span of two months at this point, if I include the February Zine that preceded my temporary return to Caramblogage- a very short time. It feels like months have been compressed into days, once again. Two weeks of shock, of disaster and, finally the reemergence of capitalism.

It bears repeating that I don't believe that this novel virus is any less dangerous than it is made to be, and that we should do everything to mitigate its effects on friends, loved ones and societies. We should be mindful that those of us in the urban global north are the lucky ones and cannot imagine the effect the idea, not to mention the reality of this virus will have on societies in the global south, victims of forced migration, wars, ongoing economic extraction, or those already affected by climate change.

Having watched a couple of governments pass their aid bills, I see a repeat of the 2008 financial "crisis", under a different flag. In other words, most of the money- at this point, we are talking about trillions, not billions of dollars- are going to be propping up the parts of the economy that were failing anyway. Again. The free market, once again being supported by socialism. Corporations are people, we get it. No person, legal or otherwise, is too big to fail. It is business and politics as we have gotten used to it.

I am no economist, but an oncoming economic crash was due for at least two years now, if you follow the punditry- reports of a stock market once again overinflated by debt, without any real substance to underpin it, markets underperforming and being propped up by subsidies and government programmes, while many at the labour end of the scale find themselves making less and less at the end of the month, if they are making anything off their jobs at all. Contractual jobs are becoming rarer and rarer in a gig economy in which workers are expected to be available at the whims of a market, and invisibly fend for themselves until needed again.

Source: The Nib | Pia Guerra | 202603 | https://thenib.com/stack-em-up/

Many younger people I talk to- a generation younger than me- seem to expect to work two or three jobs to ensure their subsistence, or to be, in one way or another, beholden in all choices they make, first to their employment, and the earning of paychecks, before thinking about themselves as human beings. As it is, in Germany, many retailers are hiring people who are already on government subsistence- they're cheaper to hire and you can assume that they will continue receiving this subsistence, so, as an employer, you will never have to offer them more stable employment, or insurance, or retirement benefits. This cannot be a fair system as is.

This also will not be a system that is sustainable as the need for human labour decreases, and fully automated labour- as opposed to mechanically assisted labour- is introduced into more and more sectors. Where will all the people, for instance in delivery jobs, some sectors of retail and manufacturing go? We can't all become content creators for Youtube, or Twitch, or travel bloggers, or even artists.  Coveted "Management" jobs will probably mostly be reduced to performative labour, the human face to a vast force of machines, endlessly producing without pause, while some fool smiles and pretends to be in control.. In the background, people with no job description, will continue to get richer as long as they can.

Economically, both for governments and companies, the best thing would be not to have to worry about so many people. Insisting that they get back to work- especially in service sectors and the parts of the economy that require frequent and random interactions with the public, is bound to create a few vectors for a disease that may prove deadly. It is easier to efficiently run a place with 100 people in it than it is to scale that organisation to 1000 people- why not do away with a few of the 1000 in the interest of all and the economy?

A disease that may prove deadly and possible exposure to it may create a stigma for those who, by necessity of paying the rent have to work in conditions which are now biohazardous.

Imagine, for a minute, a world in which your possible infection profile determines which social circles you can move in, whom you can meet and which buildings you can enter. A world in which an enclave of the powerful laugh about the myriad possibilities they suggested to those who have no power over their lives anymore, carriers for all possible deadly plagues, but uncaring- after all, they have access to medical treatments unavailable to the masses, while these depend on handouts from whatever is government at that point, and the meagre health care handed down to them at a cost they cannot afford. Imagine arriving, with your date, at your favourite open restaurant. The staff checks your immunological profile upon entering, discovering that not only are they carriers of 24 strains of coronviruses, 5 of which are highly contagious and may have a 2% mortality rate- do you seriously think you're getting in there? Will you even want to take them home at that point? You, at this point, run the risk of becoming as infected as they are, and in public perception, are already infected.

Suddenly, doors close. You may be quarantined- you may, in fact quarantine yourself. Your circle of friends will keep their distance. You will be excluded- should you be looking- from working in crowded offices, for fear of infecting productive human resources. Cultural participation impossible, you're stuck at home, re-reading the same article for the fiftieth time. Years of social distancing will have frayed ties between families and friends, reducing most to a distant 13-or-so point font on a screen- they will talk to you, but eventually, you will want to meet someone. You may realise how lonely you are, and how empty of people the world is, once all your contact happens digitally. Who knows- there may be an army of support bots waiting to offer good advice and a simulated closeness to you. A police drone may fly by your window every so often, checking if you are adhering to your seclusion. 

Meanwhile, in those buildings now unaccessible to you, for the people with the ability to work from home, or with the resources to treat most afflictions, it will be, as mentioned earlier, business as it has always been, except that the hold of a small number of monopolists on it will be even firmer. Due to the abscence of people on the street, many independent retailers will be erased into bankrupcy, expanding the grip of corporations with stockpiles of funds built over decades, on business life and on public life.

All this to say that for most people, the current crisis means that they have to lower their expectations towards the lives they may lead. Social mobility- already much decreased in the past decades- will be a thing of the past. You will need a kindly benefactor to invite you into the higher circles, and access to them will be highly restricted- it's not likely you will run into anyone outside your social circle on the street, or be able to enter a building without passing some kind of health test and access to people will be restricted by further bureaucracy and paperwork- in most cases, it will not be a question of whether you are simply up to the task, but also whether your health profile is adequate to the employment offered.

It's fun to let your imagination run wild into dystopian futures, in the knowledge that you can return to a present that is less so. However, as this present progresses into a future and becomes a past, it is difficult not to project current economic and social trends, discussions and observations into a possibility resembling an sci-fi novel set in an authoritarian dystopia, in which ubiquitous surveillance and a security state suppress and separate the general populace while directing massive financial gains towards the pacification and flattery of an elite who uphold the state's mandate to power while draining its resources.

via https://twitter.com/PhilosophyMttrs/status/1244180039056478209 / You're missing Zamyatins "We"

All of this is, at this point, a mental sketch.

There are many questions raised by this crisis, many answers. If, as I have heard claimed over and over, all the things that weren't working are obvious at this point, let us draw conclusions and solutions from those obvious problems and develop societies that is not worse than the one we are currently in. The cycle of politics is one of progress, resistance, improvement and finally, corruption, though these often overlap. We have seen progress and corruption. Resistance and improvement are overdue.

Part V of the current IGAF: Money, Politics and People- Distributing Profit a bit more fairly
Part IV of the current IGAF: Dystopia
Part III of the current IGAF: Keeping a shop open
Part II of the current IGAF: How are we going to pay for THAT?

Part I of the current IGAF: Keeping in Touch