Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 07-26-2010, 11:00 AM

that's all very nice except

(a) this is specifically about the development of a new public/private complex of surveillance/"counter-terrorism"/"security" institutions since 9/11/2001. this poses a basic problem from all these references to clinton.

(b) this sector is not--i repeat not---a matter of "big government." well it is, but the lines are all blurry, just as the lines are blurry in the context of the rumsfeldian "lean and mean" military with its extensive reliance on private contractors/mercenaries/infrastructure providers/friends of friends to provide what were at once point functionalities that the military itself would have done. now in the name of "shrinking government" we get these public/private complexes which are doubly free from any accountability--first behind the veil of secrecy second behind the veil of private-ness.

so there's little if any connection between "big government" slogans and what's detailed in the washington post reports.

if size were in itself a value criterion, i could even see more paranoid libertarians being cool with this arrangement since it involves so much private sector activity. and i can also see that the absolute lack of accountability for the private sector would not be a problem until something happened that made it into one. then folk would be all "wait...i thought private equaled good, but here i can't seem to even start to mobilize..."

at the same time (here i contradict myself almost) there is a longer-term history behind this sector.this metastasis of "security" bureaucracies public and private and the unbelievable amounts of money that's been poured into them (and the lack of co-ordination, and the lack of mapping and the lack of control) is a "resolution" of the "problem" of what to do about the national security state after the cold war.

the national security state is a conservative patronage network par excellence.
and it is very much about a contempt for democratic process that made it the exact parallel of what it was set up to oppose (state of emergency anyone?)
so this is the institution framework for the oligarchy version of the united states, the one that dispenses with any pretense to democratic process.

to my mind, the reasonable response to the end of the cold war would have been to dismantle the national security state altogether---but it appears that there's WAY too much money at stake, WAY too much power at stake for that to happen. so 9/11/2001 was like a giant gift from the cosmos, one that gave this loathesome structure courtesy of the truman administration a reason to mutate.

that's what i think we're talking about here. a specific "security" apparatus that plays by its own special rules.
and under the figleaf of "security" this sector has grown wild.
but have a look at the data.

07-26-2010, 11:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's all very nice except (a) this is specifically about the development of a new public/private complex of surveillance/"counter-terrorism"/"security" institutions since 9/11/2001. this poses a basic problem from all these references to clinton. (b) this sector is not--i repeat not---a matter of "big government." well it is, but the lines are all blurry, just as the lines are blurry in the context of the rumsfeldian "lean and mean" military with its extensive reliance on private contractors/mercenaries/infrastructure providers/friends of friends to provide what were at once point functionalities that the military itself would have done. now in the name of "shrinking government" we get these public/private complexes which are doubly free from any accountability--first behind the veil of secrecy second behind the veil of private-ness. so there's little if any connection between "big government" slogans and what's detailed in the washington post reports. if size were in itself a value criterion, i could even see more paranoid libertarians being cool with this arrangement since it involves so much private sector activity. and i can also see that the absolute lack of accountability for the private sector would not be a problem until something happened that made it into one. then folk would be all "wait...i thought private equaled good, but here i can't seem to even start to mobilize..." at the same time (here i contradict myself almost) there is a longer-term history behind this sector.this metastasis of "security" bureaucracies public and private and the unbelievable amounts of money that's been poured into them (and the lack of co-ordination, and the lack of mapping and the lack of control) is a "resolution" of the "problem" of what to do about the national security state after the cold war. the national security state is a conservative patronage network par excellence. and it is very much about a contempt for democratic process that made it the exact parallel of what it was set up to oppose (state of emergency anyone?) so this is the institution framework for the oligarchy version of the united states, the one that dispenses with any pretense to democratic process. to my mind, the reasonable response to the end of the cold war would have been to dismantle the national security state altogether---but it appears that there's WAY too much money at stake, WAY too much power at stake for that to happen. so 9/11/2001 was like a giant gift from the cosmos, one that gave this loathesome structure courtesy of the truman administration a reason to mutate. that's what i think we're talking about here. a specific "security" apparatus that plays by its own special rules. and under the figleaf of "security" this sector has grown wild. but have a look at the data. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-26-2010 at 11:04 AM..