This isn’t a capitalism problem. It’s an authoritarianism problem. The only thing about this that relates to capitalism is that it’s a private company setting up the cameras instead of the state doing it.
That’s a gross over simplification that ignores the influence of the insurance industry shifting the baseline of public surveillance and crony capitalism that infects our municipalities.
“Decentralize the mass surveillance!” cries the anarcho-libertarian. “Big Government is monopolizing all the cameras! We should let the market decide who gets spied on!”
Authoritarianism means very little, it’s such a broad term that doesn’t localise the origin of repression. Instead of considering the root of the problem here, which is capitalism/private property, you look at a feature or a phenomenon.
This is absolutely a capitalism problem. It’s what happens when you let corporations do whatever without consequences as long as they can afford the bribes and in turn get contacts on taxpayer money.
True, but I could also see an authoritarian “communist” government doing all the same surveillance bullshit.
So, while it’s a capitalism problem this time, I don’t think it’s a capitalism-exclusive problem. It really is, at its root, an authoritarianism problem. This time, you’ve got capitalist authoritarianism, but next time maybe a different flavor.
The same thing is happening/has already happened in China, the government there can find you and black bag you anywhere at any time. Ask Naomi Wu.
Russia basically is this already.
Europe is also trying to go there with the repeated attempts to pass chat control and age restrictions on internet access.
In the US, capitalism is the tool the authoritarians are using to accomplish their goals, and it is absolutely enabling the spread of the surveillance state. Capitalism itself is not the motivation for the surveillance state, it’s just being used by the authoritarians. If we’re going to put a stop to this kind of behavior, we have to get the targets right. Flock and the other companies like them are a symptom of the larger problem.
To my knowledge, Naomi Wu was never “black bagged”. She’s still selling stuff on cybernightmarket. She’s just done posting politics.
But to compare the grief Wu got (and, from what I read forever ago, it was as much other terminally online types screaming at her as any state intervention) with Leqaa Kordia or Mahmoud Khalil both of whom absolutely were “black bagged” in the literal sense? Wu was not indefinitely detained in a prison camp or threatened with torture unless she “voluntarily self-deported”, at least as far as I could find.
Russia basically is this already.
Russia is so much more, as they’ve weaponized their prison population into military conscripts.
Really not looking forward to the day I’m arrested by an ICE agent who is, himself, wearing a bomb collar.
Capitalism itself is not the motivation for the surveillance state
The surveillance state is a vital tool of private industry when executives fear a proletariat insurrection. It is a necessary precondition to prevent insurrection.
Capitalists are constantly telling on themselves.
This isn’t a capitalism problem. It’s an authoritarianism problem. The only thing about this that relates to capitalism is that it’s a private company setting up the cameras instead of the state doing it.
Kill the authoritarians. Only way.
Capitalism is pretty inherently authoritarian. The boss calls the shots.
That’s a gross over simplification that ignores the influence of the insurance industry shifting the baseline of public surveillance and crony capitalism that infects our municipalities.
Capitalists have been trying to build the panopticon since the first factories.
Yes, that’s how it’s implemented under capitalism.
States further into their authoritarianism don’t need to bother with middle men and cutouts and shit.
They just put up the cameras.
“Decentralize the mass surveillance!” cries the anarcho-libertarian. “Big Government is monopolizing all the cameras! We should let the market decide who gets spied on!”
Authoritarianism means very little, it’s such a broad term that doesn’t localise the origin of repression. Instead of considering the root of the problem here, which is capitalism/private property, you look at a feature or a phenomenon.
Meh, there’s some smart people that have come up with a pretty clear understanding of authoritarianism.
https://theauthoritarians.org/
But your conclusion is also partly correct, the authoritarian personality is not inherently bad, they must first be weaponized.
This is absolutely a capitalism problem. It’s what happens when you let corporations do whatever without consequences as long as they can afford the bribes and in turn get contacts on taxpayer money.
True, but I could also see an authoritarian “communist” government doing all the same surveillance bullshit.
So, while it’s a capitalism problem this time, I don’t think it’s a capitalism-exclusive problem. It really is, at its root, an authoritarianism problem. This time, you’ve got capitalist authoritarianism, but next time maybe a different flavor.
China already has this sort of system completely built out.
But is the technology developed by the state or are they contracting it out to a private company?
How does that matter?
Both are fucking horrible.
But also, China does both. In 2023 they had over 700 million cameras tracking people.
That’s how they get away with it too. Worst constitutional loophole ever.
The same thing is happening/has already happened in China, the government there can find you and black bag you anywhere at any time. Ask Naomi Wu.
Russia basically is this already.
Europe is also trying to go there with the repeated attempts to pass chat control and age restrictions on internet access.
In the US, capitalism is the tool the authoritarians are using to accomplish their goals, and it is absolutely enabling the spread of the surveillance state. Capitalism itself is not the motivation for the surveillance state, it’s just being used by the authoritarians. If we’re going to put a stop to this kind of behavior, we have to get the targets right. Flock and the other companies like them are a symptom of the larger problem.
To my knowledge, Naomi Wu was never “black bagged”. She’s still selling stuff on cybernightmarket. She’s just done posting politics.
But to compare the grief Wu got (and, from what I read forever ago, it was as much other terminally online types screaming at her as any state intervention) with Leqaa Kordia or Mahmoud Khalil both of whom absolutely were “black bagged” in the literal sense? Wu was not indefinitely detained in a prison camp or threatened with torture unless she “voluntarily self-deported”, at least as far as I could find.
Russia is so much more, as they’ve weaponized their prison population into military conscripts.
Really not looking forward to the day I’m arrested by an ICE agent who is, himself, wearing a bomb collar.
The surveillance state is a vital tool of private industry when executives fear a proletariat insurrection. It is a necessary precondition to prevent insurrection.
Every flock employee should still be communally murdered like the end of ‘sympathy for lady vengeance’ though.