General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)This is why ALL liberals *should* oppose dragnet surveillance [View all]
Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 11:06 AM - Edit history (2)
Nashville_Brook note:
This is for those of us who are horrified at the "so what" response to the PRISM/Boundless Informant revelations.
We know that when people say "I assume my email is read," or that "my every move is logged," they're admitting tolerance and complicity to a form of totalitarianism that has a long and predictable history.
We also know it's not going to be different because of who holds office at this point in time. Indeed, these intelligence programs might even be beyond the control of an executive who is beholden to the most rarified ranks of the elite. Obama admitted as much when he passed the buck back to Congress during his remarkable comments on the subject Friday.
As this article points out, there's a LOGIC to state spying, and it's not what they're telling you. It's not about terror. Not exclusively. It's about keeping all of us pliant.
The very existence of such state spying apparatus is enough for MOST people to forgo any serious involvement in organizing against it. People fear losing their jobs, of having their secrets revealed, and of having their lives upended. People in this state of insecurity are not going to mount a serious campaign for Congress or the president to do anything...let alone give up the crown jewel of power: total surveillance.
The Logic of the Surveillance State
Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well. Conservatism is the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them badly.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-logic-of-the-surveillance-state/
(snip)
The problem with surveillance states, and with oppression in general, is the cost. This cost is both direct, in the resources that are required, and indirect in the lost productivity and creativity caused by constant surveillance. Surveillance states, oppressive states, are not creative places, they are not fecund economically. They can be efficient and productive, for as long as they last, which is until the system of control is subverted, as it was in the USSR. We forget, in light of the late USSRs problems, that it did create an economic miracle in the early years, and tremendously boost production. Mancur Olsons Power and Prosperity gives a good account of why it worked, and why it stopped working.
(snip)
If you want despotism, as elites, if you want to treat everyone badly, so you personally become more powerful and rich, then, youve got two problems: an internal one (revolt) and an external one: war and being outcompeted by other nations elites, who will come and take away your power, one way or the other (this isnt always violently, though it can be.) The solution is a transnational elite, in broad agreement on the issues, who do not believe in nationalism, and who play by the same rules and ideology. If youre all the same, if nations are just flags, if you feel more kinship for your fellow oligarchs, well then, youre safe. Theres still competition, to be sure, but as a class, youre secure.
That leaves the internal problem, of revolt. The worse you treat people, the more youre scared of them. The more you clamp down. This is really, really expensive and it breaks down over generations, causing internal rot, till you cant get the system to do anything, no matter how many levers you push.
What is being run right now is a vast experiment to see if modern technology has fixed these problems with surveillance and opporessive states. Is it cheap enough to go full Stasi, and with that level of surveillance can you keep control over the economy, keep the levers working, make people do what you want, and not all slack off and resist passively, by only going through the motions? The oligarchs are betting that the technology has made that change... with the creation of a transnational ruling class, and with the ability to scale surveillance, it may be possible to take and keep control indefinitely, and bypass the well understood problems of oligarchy and police and surveillance states.