A Naked Lunch in Brussels

Yesterday, I listened to, and forwarded to Ran a talk by Bruce Sterling at this year’s south-by-southwest. Sterling (aka Chairman Brucie) is a subtly infectious thinker- along with his classic cyberpunk writing and advocacy he has also dropped little cultural interventions like the PDF-only White Fungus or Taklamakan and the character of Leggy Starlitz, all of which have tumbled about in my brain since I first read them. He also has a creepy habit of being right about things: his Reboot 11 speech resonates seven years later, for instance, as a description of life in the 20-teens.

Sterling’s latest talk is panoptic and wandering, like pretty much everything else he ever produces, and it hasn’t been transcribed yet (I don’t have time!) but it has a few standout moments. He talks a lot about the dynamics of failed states, for instance: generally, they want to be respected as states, and they can dress themselves up in the costumes of states, but they’re unable to ensure the exclusive right of force within their boundaries, they can’t provide meaningful services to populations, and most importantly, they can’t respond to the people the think they want to serve. There’s no participatory point of entry- they sort of exist, and people sort of negotiate their lives around them, but it comes down to the old Soviet “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us” which Sterling glosses as “we pretend to govern, and you pretend to pay taxes.”

He links failed states to the concept of the “surveillance state,” one in which the putative government relies on information about the population- preferably, total information about the population- in order to guide its interventions towards whatever its goals may be. This is a hip topic now, as people are realizing (again!) that it is possible to track and influence people without a court order simply by determining what people do and don’t see. Again, this isn’t new.

What Sterling points out is that the surveillance state is, by any measure, a failed state. Despite the Orwellian predictions of a post-wikileaks post-Snowden world, data-driven surveillance and control really sucks as a method of government. It just doesn’t work- for all we complain about Apple or the NSA tracking our phones, there are entire populations where literally everybody has a satellite, a Persistent Surveillance System or a drone following them at all times, and they are (among) the least controlled, the least served, the least governed people on earth. Quoth The Chairman: “Is there anyone with a drone over their head who is actually doing what guys with drones want?”

This is fascinating because the move towards a surveillance state seems completely irresistible. The talk refers frequently to social psychologist and philosopher Shoshana Zuboff (who wrote the “track and influence people” article linked above) whose famous third law states that any technology that can be used for surveillance and control will be. This explains a lot- the FBI and Apple are actually converging on the same status.Both are data-driven control systems that can’t quite claim legitimacy or respect, and neither one has any real influencing ability beyond their capacity to make a few individuals’ lives hell at any given time. In fact, Sterling places Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the US government in the same failed-surveillance-state category. All are fundamentally undemocratic despite their best intentions, all unable to provide the actual services people want, all focus their energies on collecting data about their constituents, and all exercise control through webs of weird, incomprehensible legal snarls that make no prima facie sense and end up being lawyered out to the point of absurdity. Also, all fancy themselves diplomatic powerhouses.

Wait, the title of this entry was…

burroughs1-300x228So that was my thought last night. Then this morning, I got the news from Belgium along with everyone else and because Bruce Sterling is such a good writer, I started hearing everything coming over the Beeb in the context of a failed surveillance state. You see, there are lots of theories as to why the Middle East is blowing itself up and declaring war on The West and I can’t quite buy any of them. We’ll just discard the racial/cultural/”these people just aren’t ready to be free” crap out of hand, and move on to the slightly more comprehensive. Is this a legacy of colonialism? Somehow no. The Kuwait war clearly was. The “Great Game” in Afghanistan continued well into this century as a colonial (i.e. not even “post-“) conflict without a doubt. But the Islamic State seems to be as much within the west as it is a resurgent nationalism, or opportunist regional resource grab, or other classic power struggle played out in the formerly colonized world. The Islamic State is a creature of the twenty-first century, not the twentieth or the nineteenth, and it reflects the deracinated, globalized, cosmopolitan world in which it arose. It may even be a critique of it- in fact I think it is.

I have meant, for several years, to write an argument against GMO crops. Not because they are or aren’t dangerous for consumers (I’m more interested in the question of farmworker safety) but because of what they represent to farmers. GMO crops do not exist in isolation- the same companies that produce them also produce the associated amendments and treatments, sell insurance packages, and manage elevator and commodity markets, so that any farmer in a market where GMOs exist is trapped in a net of conditional subsidies, market adjustments, legal liabilities, futures contracts, and other intangible constraints that make it virtually impossible to reject the seeds or the terms of sale. Worse, like Comcast subscriptions and payday loans, the nets of contracts and regulations are intentionally obscured and complex, exposing any would-be dissident grower to legal or criminal action by any entity with better lawyers, which in real life means the companies that produce the seed. There are even rumours about One Particular Seed Company: if you are a local rep or preferred customer for them, and you covet your neighbor’s ground, they will cheerfully sic their legal team on them using all the fine print at their disposal to bring your neighbor to his knees and ensure you pay a low price at the inevitable auction. The ostensible reason for this is the legal framework of intellectual property- all this exists to protect the labor and investment of a few thousand biologists somewhere- but the actual reason has more to do with Zuboff’s Third Law above.

And this is global- thanks WTO/NAFTA/FTAA/TPP/ETC!- and it comes from the country that once distributed the Green Revolution. Say what you like about the Norman Borlaug and the oil markets that inevitably followed him, he fed a lot of people without entrapping them in this kind of crap- but that was when the West had a brand to uphold, the Alternative To Communism, the World of Plenty, a sociological product package that was carefully vetted, improved, developed, calibrated, and essentially made as valuable as possible to our friends. Now that the cold war is over, however, we have intellectual property restrictions and facebook’s Terms of Service. I am inevitably reminded of William S. Burroughs heroin-as-capitalism metaphor:

“The junk merchant doesn’t sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client.”

And that’s what we offer the world. Something you think you can’t do without, but which comes with an inherently extortionary involvement with a surveillance-and-control system that thinks it’s a state. Several of them actually- and don’t give me that “golden rice will save children/facebook created the Arab spring” excuse bullshit either. The West no longer makes the world better, the West closes off alternatives. That’s the Western brand.

Does it work?

But as Sterling pointed out, surveillance states suck. Not just ethically, not just as a consumer experience, surveillance states suck at governing, surviving, sustaining themselves, growing.. basically doing any of the things a state should probably think about doing. The classic nightmare state is East Germany, which for all its depth of surveillance, wiretapping, informers’ networks, interrogations, and terror, lasted only one year longer than the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. When the wall finally came down in Berlin, at least a third of living East Germans were older than, and outlived, their own country.

If surveillance states can’t actually guarantee security (or roads, bridges, health care, migration, economic mobility, equitable policing, …) they do seem to be able to piss people off, and also, weirdly, to atomize resistance activities. Sure, facebook can catalyze large-scale uncoordinated actions, but it also seems to impair the structural development of movements. In truth, social movements are easy to break apart, using the same data-driven tools we think we can use to build them. The Islamic State is described as being a social media nation, but in fact its resilience where so many others have collapsed (the April 6th movement, for instance) comes from its very selective use of social media, and its primary reliance on actual social networks of people who know, meet, and give orders to each other. Unlike the twitterati, the Islamic State is willing to go offline and use established leaders. In fact, I think, the temptation to be offline- to be outside the network of legal precarity, debts, terms-of-service, arbitration-only contracts, intellectual property lawsuits, patent trolling, and other exploitative forced choices- is the primary appeal of organizations like IS- or individual actions like walking around with a firearm shooting your coworkers and neighbors.

It works, too. A few determined freedom fighters/terrorists who don’t carry phones, use facebook, or appear in face-recognition databases are completely unstoppable. Even people who are known seem to be hard to stop. What can you actually do to someone with a bomb strapped to their belly? I mean, you can kill them, then they blow up, then they’re dead. Or, you can not kill them, then they blow up, then they’re dead. You can destroy their family’s housing, the way Israel does, or try to embarrass them on social media, the way the US and UK do in their “deradicalization” programs (worthy of another post, those), but you can’t really take anything away from someone who’s already determined to die. You can offer something positive to people who stay alive, but we don’t do that anymore- its not as tempting as punitive control.

Essentially, IS and the assorted mass shooters of North America have hacked the critical flaw in the surveillance state. It offers nothing in terms of narrative, no meaning, no identity, no collective self worth participating in, no compensatory opportunities, just an addiction that knows everything about you. Even that’s only available as long as you don’t, say, want to move to Germany. Anyone wanting something better than this needs only sneak behind the curtain and see that it only functions when people can be deterred by lawsuits, jail time, or police bullets. When people, in other words, have more than a status update to live for.

Bringing it Home

To be honest, I’m not as worried about ISIS as you probably think I should be; like most telegenic horrors its much less relevant to my life than car accidents or heart disease. I am a bit worried about Donald Trump, though, who makes up the other major topic of Sterling’s talk. To hear Sterling tell it, Trump is an American Berlusconi– a comical sort of reality-show replacement for the “face” of the political system, able to absorb the blame for the failures of the deeper machinery but not implicitly a threat. I’m not entirely sure about this, because I think that Trump, and his supporters, many of whom I live and work with, have clued into something similar to what IS are seeing: the US is not actually for real anymore.

Dmitri Orlov described the end of the Soviet Union as the lifting of a dream, a sudden realization that what was ludicrous was in fact powerless as well. How Trump wins is by recognizing this ludicrous unreality in the established “norms” of political behavior. The control system, the “donor class,” the “party [that] decides” are paper tigers, dreams, ridiculous. The US government is on equal footing with Apple- neither could “build a wall” across Mexico, or bomb another state into compliance, or “fix” the economy, and every claim to the contrary is both risible and, most likely, the loss leader for another round of extra-legal exploitation and entrapment. But hey, neither one can keep the bridges from falling down either, or maintain a reasonable life expectancy or low infant mortality rate. Trump is not a fascist or a clown, he simply gives the panopticon no more respect than it can actually command in the real world. Against this, the Clinton and other republican campaigns can manage only  a half-throated reassurance that rules and traditions aren’t bankrupt, should matter, and there’s nothing important behind the curtain. Those claims evaporate, USSR-like, with the first throw of a fist.

The Islamic State, the playground killers, Donald Trump, may all be varying degrees of ugly, pointing out varying degrees of failure in the various states they inhabit, but they matter because they’re an indication of something: they are the face of post-surveillance worlds. They are what will replace the failed states we don’t yet realize we live in.


11 thoughts on “A Naked Lunch in Brussels

  1. “As The New York Times says, one of the most striking aspects of the [Bataclan] phones is that not a single e-mail or online chat message from the attackers was found on them. That seems to be further evidence that they knew such communications were routinely monitored by intelligence agencies. But rather than trying to avoid discovery by using encryption—which would in itself have drawn attention to their accounts—they seem to have stopped using the Internet as a communication channel altogether, and turned to standard cellular network calls on burner phones” [Ars Technica]. “If they think you’re technical, go crude; if they think you’re crude, go technical.” –William Gibson.



  2. Sterling’s observations on the shortcomings of the surveillance state can be fitted into a more general Western delusion about the power of the gaze as the ultimate means of engaging reality. The immediacy of visual stimuli and their relation to naive ideas of the empirical basis of science (“people learned to do science when they paid attention to what they saw, not what they were told”) has persuaded most of us that the more visual a phenomenon is, the more relevant it is. Sterling deals with the shortcomings of that perspective with drones, and alludes to the issue as it arises with Trump.

    Trump exists because he is willing to offer something, fascism, that is completely impossible to bring about under the US Constitution, but which is “common sense” to a significant portion of the population. Most Americans aren’t aware of how fully constitutional legalism permeates the details of their life. It’s arguable that if Americans were given an opportunity to vote for or against that constitutional legalism as a political system, that most would reject it. In any case, the media plays on this unfamiliarity with actual arrangements by asserting that every four years, our whole constitutional arrangement can be rewritten depending on who wins the presidency.

    Most presidential candidates play on this disconnect between the election show and the actual power they could exercise by walking a fine line between promising the media that they will create a new nation, while avoiding alienating anyone who they will be relying on to actually exercise their prerogatives if they get elected. Hilary Clinton has been particularly thorough in this regard, to the point where she has set out multiple contradictory visions for the country over the years, while enjoying the esteem of a wide range of powerful interests. This undermines her appeal to the media, because it calls attention to how little they affect politics. Regardless of what gaffes she makes, she must still be taken seriously, because people who matter will go to bat for her.

    Trump is the perfect antithesis to the Clinton candidacy. He has the money and celebrity to not bother to tailor a message to donors, so he can appeal directly to the prejudices of a portion of the electorate that otherwise enjoys no real political power. The media describes his Mussolini schtick as freedom from political correctness. This elevates their reputation, making it seem as if their capacity to shame candidates was the cause of Americans refraining from overtly racist language, rather than a legal regime that can impose punitive damages on capitalists and bureaucrats who violate current racial norms. Trump voters are the people who are being forced to go to diversity workshops, not the people who are instituting them to avoid lawsuits.

    As Sterling points out, Trump is spectacle. The degree to which any leftist views defeating Trump as the most important goal of this election cycle, is the degree to which they are distracted from politics by spectacle. Trump has no effective political relationships to allow him to run things, even if he had plans that were allowed by the constitution. His greatest impact is his divisive effect on the Republican party, the possibility that having Trump at the top of the ticket could affect the electability of downticket Republican candidates. That could result in a major shift in US politics, but not to the right.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I considered framing the whole post as “Bentham/Foucault were wrong!” but I figured half the readers would have no idea what I was talking about and the other half would realize I had no idea what I was talking about. I actually disagree with your last bit though- I think the relevance of Trump is that he’s smashing a mirror in public. The restraint on what you call “common sense” fascism is both the constitution (though interpretation is pretty diffuse and ramified) and also a sense of common decency. Trump is making it clear that the latter is toothless, that it doesn’t matter what they catch you doing or saying or who you quote or hang out with, there’s nothing anyone can do to an angry mob of a few million white Americans except mock, insult, and condescend. I’m not worried about a Trump presidency- that would just be a hilarious pause in the general icky trend towards a more effective surveillance state that can’t actually do anything meaningful for its citizens. Nothing Trump tried to do would outlast him, and ninety percent of it wouldn’t even work while he was in office. As Sterling says, a reality show.

      I am worried about an animated, self-aware, and newly empowered and unafraid mob of a few million angry Americans, mostly white. Y’know?

      Liked by 1 person

      • “I am worried about an animated, self-aware, and newly empowered and unafraid mob of a few million angry Americans, mostly white. Y’know?”

        That seems about right to me. Trump doesn’t seem to have a particular end in mind, and he doesn’t seem to have planned the direction things have gone so far. Rather, his approach to campaigning has been a verbal equivalent of “button mashing” and it just so happens that the political climate was ripe for…well, I don’t want to throw the “f” word around too liberally, but a mob of humiliated, ethnocentric Americans at any rate. He looks like a strongman because the audience was looking for a strongman. (In that sense, Trump’s not breaking the mirror — he IS the mirror.)

        There’s probably a lot of people who could have stepped into that void. There’s probably a lot of reasons to be glad it’s Trump and not someone with some sort of master plan. Hell, if Trump can find a balance between what his supporters are looking for and what will not be terrible for pretty much everyone else, a Trump presidency might be the best way out of this mess.

        I think DBDodd might actually be right about Trump negatively affecting the electability of Republicans, but I’m not sure the mob feeling more humiliated and less politically empowered is a good outcome.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ” There’s probably a lot of reasons to be glad it’s Trump and not someone with some sort of master plan.”

        That may or may not be a good thing. This thoughtful article makes a number of interesting points:

        Trump is not fascist primarily because he lacks any kind of coherent, or even semi-coherent, ideology. What he represents instead is the kind of id-driven feral politics common to the radical right, a sort of gut-level reactionarism that lacks the rigor and absolutism, the demand for ideological purity, that are characteristic of full-bore fascism.

        That does not, however, mean he is any less dangerous to American democracy. Indeed, he may be more dangerous than an outright fascist, who would in reality be far less appealing and far less likely to succeed in the current milieu. What Trump is doing, by exploiting the strands of right-wing populism in the country, is making the large and growing body of proto-fascists in America larger and even more vicious – that is, he is creating the conditions that could easily lead to a genuine and potentially irrevocable outbreak of fascism.

        All of which underscores the central fact: Donald Trump may not be a fascist, but his vicious brand of right-wing populism is not just empowering the latent fascist elements in America, he is leading a whole nation of followers merrily down a path that leads directly to fascism…He may not himself lack any real ideological footing, but he has laid the groundwork for a fascist groundswell that could someday be ridden to power by a similarly charismatic successor who is himself more in the mold of an ideological fascist. And it doesn’t take a very long look down the roll of 2016 Republican candidates to find a couple of candidates who might fit that mold.


        Liked by 1 person

      • Y’know, I really don’t have time to go into this (sadly) but I think people misunderstand fascism from WWII films made in the USA. Fascism was always a romantic movement at heart, unshackling the fire and spirit of Man from the chains of bourgeois civilization. That became the will to power thing, and the superman-as-self-actualized-everybody thing and the race and blood stuff came later. I don’t say this to defend fascism or to attack other romantic movements, just to point out that the shrieking drill-sergeant vision of fascism is waaaaaay to simplified.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. It’s a good thing Ran Prieur talks this blog up once in a while, otherwise I’d never have found it.

    A small example of how the modern surveillance state works is, I’d happily tell The State where I live, but it’s a building not zoned for residential use, so I use my friend’s address which is miles away.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “If surveillance states can’t actually guarantee security (or roads, bridges, health care, migration, economic mobility, equitable policing, …)”

      I don’t think the goal of a surveillance state is any of those things. I think its goal is that the current leadership remain entrenched and that it continue to be able to exploit the vast majority of the populace. I think that there is scant evidence that it is doomed to failure in this objective. East Germany collapsed, but only because of outside pressure and the existence of nearby, vastly superior alternatives. If all the major states are surveillance states (as seems to rapidly be happening), then where is the outside pressure going to come from?


  4. Pingback: Snitch | More Crows than Eagles

  5. Pingback: Epicene Cyborg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s