How police states maintain control

Here's one of the best descriptions I've ever read on how highly authoritarian regimes maintain control and keep people behaving the way they want them to:

“Assessing the populace – checking up on it – is a principle and never-ending social activity in communist countries. If a painter is to have an exhibition, an ordinary citizen to receive a visa to a country with a seacoast, a soccer player to join the national team, then a vast array of recommendations and reports must be garnered, from the concierge, colleagues, the police, the local party organization, the person at the trade union, and added up, weighed, and summarized, by special officials. These reports have nothing to do with artistic talent, kicking ability, or maladies that respond well to salt sea air. They deal with one thing only – the citizen’s political profile. In other words, what the citizen says, what he thinks, how he behaves, how he equips himself at meetings, or May Day parades. Because everything – day-to-day existence, promotions at work, vacations – depends upon the outcome of the assessment process, everyone, whether he wants to play soccer for the national team, have an exhibition, or spend his holidays at the seaside, must behave in such a way as to deserve a favorable assessment."

-Milan Kundera in “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”

  It seems to me that various existing and relatively harmless social patterns and customs in relatively free countries have the potential to aid and abet such a system of control. The saying that "it's not what you know, it's who you know", for instance, or the practice of securing letters of recommendation to seek employment or admission to college. It seems to me, therefore, that people in the United States or other countries which are in danger of gradually evolving into police states, should keep a careful eye on these social patterns lest they evolve into something more sinister.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

Good point. Thank you for the post. The thought occurred to me, though, that today, governments need not rely on documents, since most of us voluntarily put on-line, sometimes for all to see, who we are, what we think, who our friends and associates are, what are our political affiliations, etc. An even easier way for government to take control of individuals' lives is to simply offer "benefits." As a payroll service provider, I spend maybe 20% of my work time filling out forms the government requires from my clients that are directly related to the "benefits" employees rely on. These are "benefits" people voluntarily obtain. I see this situation as similar to the one you describe.

I have always felt that today, the portrayal of government in economically developed countries as a one-sided authoritarian force is outdated. My view is of countless power-seeking individuals that have learned that their goals of power can be easily achieved by simply offering exchanges. "I give you some money while you find yourself unemployed, in exchange for your filling out 95 forms telling me exactly who you are and where I can find you."

Marcy

Marcy,

  There's a lot to what you say. What Milan Kundera describes in the quote below is definitely based on offering (or withholding) benefits. Already in our society we definitely see lots of freedoms being given up for the sake of convenience. The amount of information individuals put online about themselves is a serious issue worth considering in this vein (voluntarily giving up privacy).

  I think *who controls* the information is key. Bureaucracies want things to be regulated, ordered, predictable, and uniform, not to have large elements of chance, choice, and chaos involved.

  If I choose what I put online, and when to take it offline, and can readily put different information online any time, including whatever I feel like making up, then government has no reliable means via which to exercise control. But the less ready individual control we have over what information various companies compile about us online, the more standardized and reliable that information is, then the more similarity there is to the communist system, since the data is simply waiting to be "added up, weighed, and summarized" by whatever "special officials" come along with the power to compel private organizations to provide it (or the benefits to induce them to do so voluntarily).

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

This is a very important topic and should cause every Facebook user to re-assess their use of the site. The pseudonymous InfoWorld columnist Robert X. Cringely posted the following cautionary tale on his blog this week, and it will send chills down your spine if you understand what is going on behind the curtain at Facebook. Seems to me the movie should have been titled "The Sociopath Network."

http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/50-billion-reasons-why-facebook-not-worth-50-billion-432

Terry

Unless you happen to own your own servers, any information you publish on the internet is within State or Business reach. Witness the newest subpoenas in the Assange case here. All though the internet has very decentralized inputs, it's structure is relatively centralized. These emails are being recorded by one of the world's largest corporations and are only a court order away from being seized, and considering their content and the reach of the DHS, at particular risk to be. Terry's article is very pertinent because it details precisely how the internet's centralized structure is being incorporated into Big Business and, inseparably, Big State. Sachs is a subsidized branch of the Federal Government at this point, if Janet Napolitano requested any information you have stored on facebook, Sachs would not be in a position to decline even if they wanted to.
Just as we happen to be talking about this, the State is talking about what to do about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html
sounds good right? Now the internet can be safe and secure, just like our airports.

Matt

And what was the place everybody looked right after the horrible shooting in Arizona? If you provide the information on-line, it is there for all to see -- and it will be used against you if the situation warrants it. Yes, Terry's post is extremely pertinent.

Marcy