The Post-Internet-Revolution society

I’ve been watching the tweets of every MSP and MP for the last fortnight – and whilst I had a pretty dim opinion of our “pro-oil anti-fossil-fuel) Holyrood MSPs before I’ve started, I’ve gone from thinking they’re deluded to thinking they are a waste of time.
They care nothing at all about industry, industrial policy, engineering – in the whole fortnight I’ve been watching their thousands of tweets I’ve not seen one tweet on any of these subjects. The closest any got to saying anything positive about industry was “I welcome a group from small business” – from an MSP who spends 90% of his time rabbitting on about how; “being gay means he’s a victim” and that gives him the right to force his views on everyone else (and there seems to be dozens of similar people – special interests are all they ever talk about).

The Internet Revolution – good for people – bad for industry

The internet revolution is the cause of the massive support for Brexit, Trump, UKIP and … horror of horrors, the SNP and Corbyn. But now, I’ve realised watching the Scottish parliament that part of the problem … the totally unwarranted attack of society against industry through the use of the CO2 proxy in the name of “global warming … has been a movement against industry that was the first of the internet revolutions.
So, that same internet revolution that brought the “industry loving” Trump to power ALSO BROUGHT the industry hating parties like the SNP (and Greens) to power. And by the same logic, it could still bring other industry hating parties to power (Corbyn? Democrats?)
Because it was academia which developed the internet for global academic co-operation. And because eco-fascism is endemic in academia, these vile creatures were allowed to be amongst the first adopters of the internet for global political action. And whilst small in number, because academics have vast swathes of public-paid time on their hands and had easy access to the internet from a very early stage, they found it incredibly easy to spread their vile anti-industry ideas onto the internet, fabricating and co-ordinating a network of anti-industry groups aka environmentalists.
And whilst the rest of us finally caught up with the academic eco-fascists, and finally swelled to such numbers that we managed to overthrow their grip on social media to get those like Trump elected, the fact is that neither the industry hating eco-fascists have gone away, nor has industry itself gained any footing on social media.
Indeed, as I write this, I cannot see any mechanism by which industry will have a voice in the post-internet-revolution politics.
Because, whilst I love the other throw of the pre-internet-revolution establishment (media tycoons, academics, big parties who all controlled public discussion and prevented discussion on issues like immigration and climate), that establishment did have some good points.
Prior to the internet revolution, big business, whilst it did not have any vote, it did have the money to buy influence into that “establishment”. It bought an army of lobbyists to hassle politicians & media to create the right kind of public support to pass the kinds of laws that it needed to keep our economic functioning. That was for purely selfish reasons, but like much of capitalism, that selfishness had a public good and benefited us through a vibrant prosperous economy (at least in theory).
But now, with social media dominated by individuals not large media corps, you cannot buy that public support – you can buy support by buying adverts or journalists in a Newspaper – now that paid-for message is bypassed through social media. You can lobby politicians – even pay then for votes – or buy them outright, but unless you rig the elections, in the end, the power of social media will elect politicians that bow down to the will of the people on social media NOT BUSINESS!
As such it seems that as we as a society grow more and more dependent on “social media” to run our political lives, we will inevitably be less and less concerned than we already are with industry … and when I look at the Scottish parliament that already means almost zero interest. And it looks like a recipe for total economic meltdown.


If I am correct about the internet revolution and its affect on busines, the political storm we have seen with regard to Trump, Brexit, UKIP, is nothing compared to the storm that will befall business. At the moment, business is owned and controlled by a very very small group of people (the super rich – like Branson, Trump). In the past, these people could buy influence in government – and indeed some like bankers are notorious for they way they bought excess influence (thus removing credit controls, causing the exponential increase in debt – leading to the banking crisis and almost the bankruptcy of the UK – in the past, people like that had their heads chopped off!)
But however corrupt the way they did it business had a say.
But the internet revolution is disempowering the once powerful. The media moguls are losing control, the industry lobbyists are no longer controlling the public debate. And the only way a business is going to be able to get its voice heard in the new age of the people’s revolution – is if it has a vocal group of citizens willing to champion it. And whilst I’m sure the shareholders will be very enthusiastic in their support for a company … they are so few, that they will be but a whisper on the new egalitarian communications of social media.
As such, the only successful companies in the future – will be those owned by the workers – or at least those where workers feel intrinsically committed to the future of the company and willing to do all they can to help that company on social media.
I’m not saying this as some communist ideal – I’m merely saying that the only companies that will have the necessary base to sway public opinion will be a mass of enthusiastic owners. That’s not moralistic, political …. it’s just a pragmatic statement of what logically will be successful in the post-internet revolution society.

The Post-Internet-Revolution Employee

Indeed, it is likely that in the future, employees will be chosen, not just for their skill doing the job … but also by their presence on social media, and their ability and willingness to do what they can to promote the social groups to which they belong. Indeed, even footballers, may win their places, not for scoring goals, but for the number of twitter followers!
But … however I look at it the post-internet revolution society is going to be more egalitarian. Just as the printing revolution brought down the authoritarian power of the church and then the king, so the internet-revolution is going to create another step change in equality … not “equality” as construed by academics … but equality as in a racist has the same number of votes as a eco-feminist and they will both have far more political clout than they do now.
I suppose that should have been obvious from the way the intervention of super-rich meddling Branson was so easily brushed aside. I suppose it is evident from the way Soros’ attempt to buy the Democrats their place in power was such an abysmal failure. The super rich are having a hard time getting listened to and even harder being taken seriously. And Trump is the exception that proves the rule: He’s super rich – but he took on all the “establishment” super-rich and won.

Through the looking glass

In the past I’ve said: that whilst it’s possible to predict the internet revolution is coming, whilst we know that it will dramatically change our society – we cannot know how it will change society.
I may have been wrong. I now feel I’ve had my first glimpse of that post-internet revolution society. I’ve no doubt my “view” is as accurate as “we will live on the moon – talking to each other on handheld communicator” view of the 1960s – in that it is largely wrong, as we never did live on the moon – but we did get handheld communicators – linked to the internet.

A PIR society

I was just wondering what acrynym would be used for the new egalitarian Post-Internet-Revolution society. We will all be PIRs (as in Peer).
Although the alternative PIR society rhyming with Fire also is possible give the history of previous revolutions.

For other articles on Internet Revolution

This entry was posted in Climate, internet Revolution, My Best Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Post-Internet-Revolution society

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    The hatred of industry predates the internet, at least as a popular venue to discuss things. PM after PM has flirted with banking and clean technologies. Tony Blair said on many occassions that the UK should be a predominatly service industry culture. I was always worried by that as it’s essentially putting all you eggs in one luxury basket. If your product is essential, it might not be the best money earner but it’s the most reliable. Germany weathered the last recession better than us because of its larger manufacturing base.
    Brexit is a massive, timely reminder that a country can’t be too much of a specialist. Post 2009 the banking industry, far from dampened by its massive mistakes and greatful for the public’s bailout, got back to the business of doing as it pleased. Every time a politician rebuked the sector it threatened to leave. Now we’ll see how valuable we are to them. If they leave, they leave but ministers should learn the lesson not to give any secotr too much power over the nation.
    Your idea of businesses demanding employees do a bit on cheering for them is not a bad idea at all. I know its natural to moan about your job but it’s past time people realised where their salaries come from. In truth, I think most people working for the private sector do know it. They may not like it but they at least understand that it’s a symbiosis. The country has warped that relationship by allowing unlimited immigration and at the same time not taxed big companies enough. They’ve allowed money to leech out of the country and not done the basic maths to work it out. The whole thing is a massive pyramid shceme that hides its nature by its massive scale.
    The whole country needs a rethink about how and where we make and spend money. We spend too much on luxuries overall and not enough on essentials. It needs a revolution but one of common sense. Can the internet drive that?

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      I originally planned to write an article in which I was going to suggest giving 1/4 of the electoral votes to business (using no taxation without representation as an argument). However, as I tried to work out how that could be done, I realised that all the “people’s revolutionary” votes, which had ignored the experts and establishment – and done just what the people wanted, meant that … it was far fetched before the internet revolution, and now it is impossible.
      So, we are going from a situation where industry had very little say and those like bankers spent a lot of money getting a say … to one where industry is completely ignored and bankers are “an embarrassment” to those in power.
      And in terms of industrial and economic policy this will be a total disaster.
      And inevitably, it will be social-media savvy organisations, that will be successful, because they have the support of their members/employees. And I don’t mean people who hire someone to do their tweets – or worse “demanding employees do a bit on cheering for them” – because you can spot that a mile away on the internet.
      Instead, organisations will need employees who are aware of the issues, able to articulate them in their own way and enthusiastic in doing so. And it’s not just at a company/organisation level, we are talking about a whole industry of enthusiastic workers.
      So …. guess who’s going to win at that game. It won’t be the production line companies employing people who can barely utter a word beyond “pass me the spanner”. Instead, it will be the articulate creative types who just happen to write a poem in praise of their industrial sector … which goes viral.
      I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in a company that had a department devoted to making employees “feel great in their job”. A department whose job was get get everyone to just love being an employee in the company and feel they wanted to come into work every day (to be bombarded with meaningless messages about how great everyone is feeling) … there’s nothing so depressing!
      Well, those companies who can fool people like me that it’s great working for them …. and make us want to tell other people on social media …. those will be the industrial giants in the PIR society.

  2. TinyCO2 says:

    I think the public are a lot more business savvy than is generally recognised… at least those out of uni or school for more than a decade. The decline of unions outside those essential service sectors currently or formerly public sectors is a measure of how ephemeral businesses can be and that the public know it.
    When I write ‘cheering’ I don’t mean ‘our product is great’, I mean something more fundamental, like reminding MPs and journalists the importance of affordable energy.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      I’m just grumpy – because before I wrote the article the worst I thought that would happen is that we get back our industry and have the odd war/riot.
      But now I realise that whilst the global warming scam has to end sometime (when we’ve got enough data) the PIR society may be intrinsically anti-industry.
      And when I think of the choice of a society with the odd war — and society run by advertising executives — the one with the wars seems better.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        Brexit is all we need to reset the country. I had hoped the 2009 recession would do it but since everyone sank, people could pretend we were doing ok in comparison. Brexit removes the comfy ‘if all else fails the EU will look after us. Which is utter sphericals anyway. The reaction of the EU to Brexit shows exactly how much support the EU supplies. If we were some dictatorship who’d stopped killing, they’d be fawning all over us but they feel comfortable taking us for granted.
        Greens and left wingers dominate the EU and the civil service. The ideals are very sweet but ultimately they have to be paid for. England at least is becoming more pragmatic and is now right of centre on many issues. If anything it’s the Tory party that had abandoned right wing policies not theit voters. Everone bar the people at the top has worked out we need to spend more at home and less on the politicians’ pet causes. Brexit should slowly make them worry about the fundamentals and less on the fripperies.

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          Totally agree. We obviously need some civil servants, but the more there are the more spare time they have and eventually if there are too many like an auto-immune disease they’ll turn on society itself.
          That’s exactly what global warming is. Our public sector is too bloated, and now especially in departments like Environmental agency they look to regulate more and more even though absolutely no one (of relevance) is asking them to do more. They are now a law unto themselves, a state within a state, and we are literally getting to the state where we work for them rather than them work of us.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            “if there are too many like an auto-immune disease they’ll turn on society itself.”
            Oh spot on! I like that analogy.
            It’s not just spare time they’ve got but spare money too. For us it’s ludicrous that it could be possible given the holes in the services but it’s become like monopoly money for them.
            One of the serious flaws in budgeting is that if a depertment doesn’t spend all its budget, it gets assigned less the next year. So in consequence they spent it on junk if they have too. And because they hold back on spending all year long, to avoid running short, they often have surplus at the end. Unfortunately the important jobs can’t be done as a mad rush at the end of the financial year so they fritter it.

  3. Martin says:

    The power to create money by the private banks is in itself a major fault of our current system.
    ‘Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!’ -Mayer Amschel Rothschild
    The basic of money creation:

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      That’s a mechanism by which money is made – the problem is that the political system is supportive of bankers who do this. And when bankers don’t have any votes, you’ve got to ask: “how do they persuade all the politicians who supposedly work for the electorate to stitch up the system to favour banks” (and not industry).

Comments are closed.