Last week on CounterSpin (5/31/13), we spoke with scholar and media historian Bob McChesney about his new book Digital Disconnect. His closing thoughts seems especially relevant in light of the blockbuster reporting this week from the Guardian (6/6/13) and Washington Post (6/6/13):
The reason that Google and Facebook provide the services they do is that they’re collecting everything on you–and they’re using that material, and they’re using it to sell you stuff and let other people sell you stuff, and you’re sacrificing your privacy completely.
And that becomes an especially frightening thought when you consider that 13 of these companies rank among the very largest in the world, and they have a very close relationship with the U.S. government. This has now slowly been coming out, that the national security agencies in the United States, and the police authorities, are working hand in hand with Google, with Facebook, with Apple and Amazon and Microsoft and all these companies to share data on us.
And it’s really the worst possible scenario for a free society, when you have an economy dominated by a handful of monopoly giants…working hand in hand with sort of a national security state that’s completely off-limits to public review to monitor the population. It’s not a tenable situation for a free society.
Listen to the full interview here. And you can get McChesney’s new book for free when you get a two-year print subscription to Extra!.
Is it fair to say we have a free society within the national security state? Let us be fair–it is not just sort of a national security state, but the real thing as far as we know. Anyone who disputes this should submit a freedom of information request so as to be informed how the state is securing your security. Presently, this may not be followed by a knock on the door and an invitation to a free vacation in Guantanamo. But if you did not object when they came to get some of those poor people now held in Guantanamo. who is to say anyone will object when they come for you?
The problem as I see it is the lack of belief…….belief in the honesty of the 3 branches of government.Or maybe the 4 branches of government(IRS).I trust most of the new TEA party inductees to the house to uphold the laws and the constitution.I trust them to beThe Dems are consumed by only Political considerations of retaining power.The republicans less so but in the same school of thought.but this white house….is so different.I can almost see that Obama has two advisors.The one one the right tells him what is the smartest best choice for the people of this country.The one on the right simply measures everything on how this will grow government(his and the libs)power.Wanna know who has won ever single debate since day one?And we are the worse for it.
Sorry(Its Sunday morning)….my second example I meant ‘the one on the left”Also I meant to write that I trust the tea party to be less co opted by the Washington inner circle swamp.
Hmmm. Merging corporate power with that of the state. What’s that called?
Im trying to see this merging of corporate power, but i just don’t see it.We have become a very unfriendly place for business.High taxes etc.I think we need to name who the corporations are -everyone believes are secretly running the world.The illuminati as it were.And then who are the secret leaders.Bill Gates?????I guess he is the biggest.Or is it every mom and pop business that incorporates?lets talk names and how the government is paying them off.The stimulus was the biggest cash dump in the history of the world.A huge percentage went into union retirement coffers.The union leader has his own freaking bedroom in the white house he has been there so often.Corporations(for the most part) got a tax hike.We can see how Obama is in bed with the unions.Corporations are the red headed step child.Tax breaks?Ha.The government is the house.The house sets the rules to benefit them selves.When the government sees the player leaving the table with some cash left they get pissed that they did not up the odds.That is what is going on here.Nothing more.People in business have to live with the hand they are dealt.Dont be angry if smart,hard working,educated people STILL come out on top.
I recently read Digital Disconnect and my review will likely be published soon…I’m not going to say where yet as the edits are in early stages. My takeaway is somewhat similar to “Michael e”‘s line of thought here but I do know who the corporations are that comprise the other half of the corporatist state. And I think you do too “Michael”. Of course it’s not the “mom and pops” or even 90+% of the businesses in this country (not to say all the corps with a role in the corporatist system are purely U.S.). It’s the mega banks…we know who they are…fed lender banks. The GMs, GEs, Haliburtons, big pharma, etc. But you want to be careful washing away their culpability assuming they are just playing a hand dealt to them…they have in fact grown and consolidated their power alongside the state over the last century through their support for specific candidates, control of MSM, writing laws while lobbying, etc. They have power outside the state with their ability to hurt politicians with business decisions and media control and the politicians have their power by representing a state with a monopoly on legitimized violence. And they do squabble at times…but rally if their system appears threatened.
Prof. McChesney’s book seems earnest and sincere, but unfortunately he falls in to the same trap many progressive/Marxist scholars fall in to these days…they have built a career arguing through their ideological lens and now have a tough time seeing past it, admitting their idealization of the state as a possible savior was misguided and naive, and coming up with any real radical new ideas in the face of the 4th transformation event in communication…i.e. the Internet. So they try to come up with a way to make it/keep it free but can’t, because they force it in to their old ideological beliefs that require state intervention to do so. A big government has no interest in helping humanity be free…it’s counterproductive to a growing bureaucratic power system…and the Internet is a force for decentralization which naturally puts it at odds with both “progressive” and Marxist thinking, big government, and monopoly corporations. I appreciate his putting some ideas out there for discussion, but even his grand idea of using vouchers to save Internet freedom and journalism spoke to an understanding that competition will benefit the system…unfortunately he thinks the IRS (who would manage a “non-profit media voucher program” in his plan) would have any interest in being apolitical or at least, not self-interested in playing favorites to produce a media market that would support a bigger government that would require a bigger IRS. These are people running the government…why anyone assumes they are not self-interested and/or have the capacity for socio-pathology is beyond me.