![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Beyond Orwell
Jul. 25th, 2013 07:45 amLast night the US House of Representatives managed to find time from it's usual occupation of finding ways to make its paymasters richer to consider the NSA's massive domestic surveillance program. It almost did the right thing but not quite. What I find interesting about the whole debate is how it goes beyond Orwell's dystopian vision in so many ways.
One of the things Orwell predicted in 1984 was that the state would use perpetual war as the reason for a perpetual surveillance state. He even invented a three state scenario to make that more plausible. What even he couldn't envisage was the idea of a perpetual war with no defined enemy. See this from today's Guardian:
With whom are "we" at war? I can only guess that to tell us would be considered a threat to national security. But if "we" means the state apparatus of the major capitalist countries we can get an idea. Surveillance of various kinds, including the use of agents provocateur, have been directed against anti-capitalist groups (Quebec), anyone who believes that environmental policy should be determined by anyone except multinational energy companies (UK), anyone who believes that police corruption should be investigated (UK again), anyone who believes that murder by US military personnel should be investigated (USA) and so on.
Who is "we"? Apparently the bought and sold agents of the major corporations and their mastiffs. And who are we at war with? Apparently "us".
One of the things Orwell predicted in 1984 was that the state would use perpetual war as the reason for a perpetual surveillance state. He even invented a three state scenario to make that more plausible. What even he couldn't envisage was the idea of a perpetual war with no defined enemy. See this from today's Guardian:
In opposition to the Amash amendment, Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Iraq war veteran, said, "Folks, we are at war. You might not like that truth. I wish we were not at war. But it is the truth."
With whom are "we" at war? I can only guess that to tell us would be considered a threat to national security. But if "we" means the state apparatus of the major capitalist countries we can get an idea. Surveillance of various kinds, including the use of agents provocateur, have been directed against anti-capitalist groups (Quebec), anyone who believes that environmental policy should be determined by anyone except multinational energy companies (UK), anyone who believes that police corruption should be investigated (UK again), anyone who believes that murder by US military personnel should be investigated (USA) and so on.
Who is "we"? Apparently the bought and sold agents of the major corporations and their mastiffs. And who are we at war with? Apparently "us".
