Lamentation over Big Brother: The Specter of Turnkey Totalitarianism and Why Freedom Will Prevail

"For a creative writer possession of the 'truth' is less important than emotional sincerity."
~George Orwell

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
~George Orwell

Zero Hedge's Tyler Durden had an interesting article published March 17, 2012 discussing the ominous prospect of totalitarianism and government. Durden: "George Orwell was right. He was just 30 years early." The Zero Hedge article discussed a recent report from Wired regarding the National Security Agency's Utah Data Center. According to Wired, the center's purpose is "to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world's communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks... including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails -- parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter.'"

According to Zero Hedge, this project has been dubbed "Stellar Wind" and will be operational in September 2013. Durden: "In other words, in just over 1 year, virtually anything one communicates through any traceable medium, or any record of one's existence in the electronic medium, which these days is everything, will unofficially be property of the US government to deal with as it sees fit." According to the Wired report, "the former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: 'We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.'"

In light of the ominous report from Wired and commentary from Zero Hedge, it would appear that the specter of Big Brother is rearing its ugly head on a scale that may have been unimaginable to George Orwell. For those who have never read the novel "1984" written by George Orwell, I would highly recommend it; it remains one of my all-time favorite books. As Durden closed his commentary, even though we appear to be "that far from a turnkey totalitarian states", it is as if "nobody cares". That being said, the 4,000 likes and 1,000-plus comments to Durden's article and the 2,000-plus tweets to the Wired report seem to suggest that some individuals do care.

I believe that it helps to analyze the situation from a broader macroeconomic and macrohistorical viewpoint. I recently discussed Gerald Cohen's macrohistorical and macroeconomic perspective with respect to the capitalist superstructure and finding global economic solutions to contemporary issues. At that time, I wrote, "Perhaps the most significant exposition in science fiction of Marx's ideas was in George Orwell's '1984'. That being said, in taking into account [Gerald] Cohen's analysis of Marxian economics, even the global situation in '1984' with Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia (if left to develop) would most likely involve an eventual (albeit distant) global return ... at some point back toward free market capitalism." In this way, capitalism must run its course through the path of human history. Ergo, "though entertaining from a reader's perspective, '1984' does not necessarily genuinely reflect Marx's theory in practice."

The reason for such distinctions goes back to an analysis of the development of the productive forces and property relations. As with many other socio-economic themes emerging in the contemporary public discourse, the discussion regarding private property rights and technological development is closely related to Marx's discussion on superstructural transitions in human history. As I have written previously, "For whatever reason, the specter of Marx remains in the current global financial crisis." In taking into account Marxian economics and historical progression, Gerald Cohen wrote, "Premature attempts at revolution, whatever their immediate outcome, will eventuate in a restoration of capitalist society." If only in theory, a capitalist society is rooted in individualistic freedom and private property rights. Per Cohen's discussion, whereas the "ruling class might be suppressed" temporarily with a hiatus of the capitalist schema, in the event of premature revolution at some point "a 'struggle for necessities' would ensue, 'and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced.'"

That being the case, in the development of the productive forces in capitalism, contemporary technological development portends a compromising of privacy and property rights. The phenomenon of Google, Inc. GOOG is an everyday example of this concept. From a Marxian economic perspective, Google, Inc. is key to the development of capitalism and what our current situation portends for the future. Marx may have foreseen the Google phenomenon as coming at a period in time when capitalism had advanced to the point of becoming geriatric. From Google Street View to the Google Books dispute with the Authors Guild to Youtube where individuals can watch music, movies, and other videos from across the globe, it would appear that technological development is "fettering" private property to the point where privacy and property rights are blurring, nearly "withering away".

What does this have to do with a "turnkey totalitarian" state? Cohen discussed that even Marx believed that "a developed technology was an essential precondition of socialist success". Contrary to what some may believe, Marx did have a few good things to say about capitalism, including how capitalism rescued millions from "the idiocy of rural life." In this way, capitalism serves an important "historical task" in bringing about the conditions where socialism is feasible. In theory, from this perspective (as we can perceive financial and technological impracticalities to establishing "socialism" at present), it would appear that there are yet a few substantial booms to anticipate on the horizon within the global capitalist superstructure. The key words here though are "in theory."

Problems arise in considering historical realities from a global perspective. Given our time period, if historical materialism has substantive value, we should begin to see at present various pockets of viable socialism/communism on the periphery of the capitalist superstructure, just as we could perceive pockets of feudalism on the outer edges of ancient society and just as we could perceive pockets of capitalism on the outer edges of feudalism; it is arguable whether we see such pockets of viable socialism today. Part of this may be owing to practical limits regarding technology and human behavior.

In the "Dictionary of Economic Terms", Alan Gilpin noted that Marx "did not foresee ... the possibility of progress through evolution." Even then, whereas Marx saw how the development of technology (in alternative Marxian verbiage, "machinery") affects society and economics, of course there are elements of contemporary society that Marx was not aware of, and to be fair, there's no way Marx could have been aware of such things. Nevertheless, even if technology could be used to compromise the capitalist superstructure, the progression of humanity portends that at some point the growth would continue, i.e., even if technology is used to hamper privacy and property rights, at some point the system will correct itself in the spirit of freedom back towards the standard historical materialistic progression. In plain English, if "big brother" hinders capitalist progression via overregulation and surveillance, people will get sick of constant surveillance and begin to stop playing the game to the point where "big brother" is unable to continue his efforts. It's as if Nature has provided in its system that should evolved intelligence stray from the course of liberty, such intelligence will be brought back to the course of liberty.

But we do have to come back to this question of "progress through evolution". If only in theory, there are practical limits to absolute tyranny. In many ways, when humans seek out methods of hindering freedom and controlling fellow humans, the choice of freedom emerges as the beneficial and most efficient option. In the book "Applied Economics", Thomas Sowell eloquently wrote, "Involuntary labor is a less efficient way to allocate scarce resources which have alternative uses." In terms of the economy of human liberty, Sowell noted, "A given individual's value as a free worker was likely to be greater than that same person's value as a slave, because of the constraints inherent in keeping someone in bondage." Thus, "the very need to pass laws to keep slavery from self-destructing piecemeal was further evidence of its economic deficiencies." The key word here being "constraint". To say the least, the course of political economy suggests that constraints are bad for business, and totalitarian efforts would appear to be such constraints.

Obviously, the present discussion has applications to current events. The Drudge Report recently linked to an executive order from Pres. Obama regarding "national defense resources preparedness". Speculation then began regarding this executive order and its implications. Even so, there do exist political realities to any actions by political leaders. Such concerns reflect an apparent Zeitgeist in American society that fears Big Brother policies.

And as I have previously discussed regarding drug laws, the marketplace functions owing to freedom, "the market seems to be drawing individuals and firms towards liberty (as governments need to lose weight to maintain efficiency)"...and the underlying technology that would be used for overregulation and constant surveillance seems to depend on a free marketplace for practical subsistence. Without freedom and a free market, the necessary resources to sustain such totalitarian efforts dissipate...giving way to the need for looser regulations and more liberty in the marketplace and everyday life. A recent article from the Financial Times written by Jamil Anderlini regarding "political reforms" in China seemed to allude to this notion: Substantial constraints on liberty are bad for business in the long run.

And yet, we find ourselves coming back to this question of progress through human evolution. Life in the universe has evolved to a state of intelligence and consciousness, and in a dumb world, the intelligent man is king. As humanity still has room for evolutionary growth, the idea that humanity will remain forever as it is today is absurd. I recently discussed the prospect of the student loan bubble as being an elephant in the room with respect to the US economy. On that same topic, I wrote that "one has to wonder exactly what other forces are at work with respect to this historically-convenient global perfect storm..." While I cannot go into depth regarding these "other forces" at this point in time, I have previously alluded to such concepts.

As intuitive of a thinker as Marx was for his time period, I do not think even Marx could have anticipated the dramatic geopolitical, economic, and environmental systemic tumult that our contemporary situation portends. Given the gravity of contemporary global problems, akin to the story of Easter Island, one may want to skip the idea of superstructual transition altogether and say that something more serious is setting in. In this way, no one can say for certain what will occur in the future, but it doesn't take a genius to do the math and it doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall. Nevertheless, even if such a day comes swiftly at the twilight of human civilization, let freedom ring...