7 ms·

Is it worse or better than Surveillance Communism?

fabianhjr 6y ago
Do you mean Mass Surveillance like the US, UK, and China? I haven't heard of "Surveillance Communism" as a developed distinct concept.
- Ruthalas 6y ago
  I suspect the parent post is making facetious commentary on the phrase, "surveillance capitalism".
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    Still though, surveillance capitalism is the commodification of personal data by private enterprise and on the other hand mass surveillance is meant to convey the surveillance of the whole (or a big part) of a population regardless of the mode of production. I guess if "capitalist mode of production absolutely good and communist mode of production absolutely bad" is taken as a given then the parent comment would be "facetious" as in dismissive of the article being discussed.
java-man 6y ago
Worse, I think. Surveillance communism used analog phone wiretaps and human agents, thus limiting the damage. NOTE: I meant a Soviet-style "communism", and not the current label that's widely applied to anything, and certainly not a Chinese-style regime. Think USSR and DDR. However, I fell into a trap: every time someone uses the loaded words like "capitalism" and "communism", it's safe to assume you are being manipulated, since the phenomenon needs to be clarified: is it an economic model, a model of government, or anything else.
- ivojp 6y ago
  This is pretty narrow thinking; it assumes communism was some failed 1950's Soviet experiment and has no modern implementation. I doubt China limits it's surveillance to wiretaps and human agents.
  - 1propionyl 6y ago
    Whether or not you believe communism has a "modern implementation", China certainly isn't it.
    - ivojp 6y ago
      I hope this isn't the beginnings of a "true communism" type of argument. If it is, let's save some time and acknowledge the same can be said for "true capitalism" where the latter lacks the body count of the former. And whether or not you think China is not an implementation of communism, both their government and its subjects would largely disagree.
      - aaron-santos 6y ago
        Just curious, what do you think the body count of the later is?
        ivojp 6y ago
        Well, counting up all the times in human history that governments had to violently force their subjects to accept private property rights or their ability to alienate their labor... let's see 0 + 0...carry the 1....um I've arrived at 0.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I see. So, all the wars of imperialism of the last 300 years didn't happen? Thousands of people don't die in the US alone every year because they can't afford medical care? You're either being deliberately disingenuous, or channelling your 14 year old nephew who's an "ancap" because it's edgy, even though he doesn't own any actual capital, if you think the body count of capitalism is really 0.
pmiller2 6y ago
Try divorcing yourself from a 1950's Red Scare definition of the word "communism," and imagine what Karl Marx actually had in mind. From Wikipedia: > According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that "socialism" and "Communism" are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death".[36] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism,_revolution_and_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism,_revolution_... Within that framework, it sounds like surveillance capitalism is infinitely worse than surveillance communism, because the framework of surveillance capitalism exists only to exploit and commodify people, in order to sell them things. Or worse, commoditize them in order to sell "them," i.e. their data, to others whom the subjects of said surveillance never consented to share with. OTOH, the hypothetical framework of surveillance communism would at least be intended to benefit society as a whole. I don't know if there's any contemporary thought on the matter, but Marx probably couldn't have conceived of the type of mass surveillance we have today, which means he probably wouldn't have understood the question straight away.
- ivojp 6y ago
  The fact that you think "surveillance communism" would be for society's benefit and that the idea of communist countries mass spying on their subjects is hypothetical shows how much education in this country has failed us.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    > education in this country What country? Did you assume everyone visiting and commenting on this website live on one country?
    - ivojp 6y ago
      Holy hell, calm down, bro. I never assumed everyone, I am replying to pmiller2. And yes, I am assuming pmiller2 and I both live in the United States. There is a pretty good chance I am correct about that. How fun are you at parties?

Do you mean Mass Surveillance like the US, UK, and China? I haven't heard of "Surveillance Communism" as a developed distinct concept.

Ruthalas 6y ago
I suspect the parent post is making facetious commentary on the phrase, "surveillance capitalism".
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  Still though, surveillance capitalism is the commodification of personal data by private enterprise and on the other hand mass surveillance is meant to convey the surveillance of the whole (or a big part) of a population regardless of the mode of production. I guess if "capitalist mode of production absolutely good and communist mode of production absolutely bad" is taken as a given then the parent comment would be "facetious" as in dismissive of the article being discussed.

java-man 6y ago

Worse, I think. Surveillance communism used analog phone wiretaps and human agents, thus limiting the damage. NOTE: I meant a Soviet-style "communism", and not the current label that's widely applied to anything, and certainly not a Chinese-style regime. Think USSR and DDR. However, I fell into a trap: every time someone uses the loaded words like "capitalism" and "communism", it's safe to assume you are being manipulated, since the phenomenon needs to be clarified: is it an economic model, a model of government, or anything else.

ivojp 6y ago
This is pretty narrow thinking; it assumes communism was some failed 1950's Soviet experiment and has no modern implementation. I doubt China limits it's surveillance to wiretaps and human agents.
- 1propionyl 6y ago
  Whether or not you believe communism has a "modern implementation", China certainly isn't it.
  - ivojp 6y ago
    I hope this isn't the beginnings of a "true communism" type of argument. If it is, let's save some time and acknowledge the same can be said for "true capitalism" where the latter lacks the body count of the former. And whether or not you think China is not an implementation of communism, both their government and its subjects would largely disagree.
    - aaron-santos 6y ago
      Just curious, what do you think the body count of the later is?
      - ivojp 6y ago
        Well, counting up all the times in human history that governments had to violently force their subjects to accept private property rights or their ability to alienate their labor... let's see 0 + 0...carry the 1....um I've arrived at 0.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I see. So, all the wars of imperialism of the last 300 years didn't happen? Thousands of people don't die in the US alone every year because they can't afford medical care? You're either being deliberately disingenuous, or channelling your 14 year old nephew who's an "ancap" because it's edgy, even though he doesn't own any actual capital, if you think the body count of capitalism is really 0.

pmiller2 6y ago

Try divorcing yourself from a 1950's Red Scare definition of the word "communism," and imagine what Karl Marx actually had in mind. From Wikipedia: > According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that "socialism" and "Communism" are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death".[36] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism,_revolution_and_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism,_revolution_... Within that framework, it sounds like surveillance capitalism is infinitely worse than surveillance communism, because the framework of surveillance capitalism exists only to exploit and commodify people, in order to sell them things. Or worse, commoditize them in order to sell "them," i.e. their data, to others whom the subjects of said surveillance never consented to share with. OTOH, the hypothetical framework of surveillance communism would at least be intended to benefit society as a whole. I don't know if there's any contemporary thought on the matter, but Marx probably couldn't have conceived of the type of mass surveillance we have today, which means he probably wouldn't have understood the question straight away.

ivojp 6y ago
The fact that you think "surveillance communism" would be for society's benefit and that the idea of communist countries mass spying on their subjects is hypothetical shows how much education in this country has failed us.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  > education in this country What country? Did you assume everyone visiting and commenting on this website live on one country?
  - ivojp 6y ago
    Holy hell, calm down, bro. I never assumed everyone, I am replying to pmiller2. And yes, I am assuming pmiller2 and I both live in the United States. There is a pretty good chance I am correct about that. How fun are you at parties?