To create a part on a 3D printer, you need plastic and a file with the design. The latter is clearly more important, as plastic is a typical commonplace for every part. Everything living on our planet is made up of the same set of amino acids. It is only the information contained in DNA that makes an elephant and an ant so different.
The saying “talking won’t fill your stomach” is no longer relevant—information literally feeds us. In today’s world, a significant portion of the harvest, even of bread, is provided by information rather than just seeds and soil. This includes knowledge gained by breeders and geneticists, the chemistry of fertilizers, research, and then the application of research results—all purely informational goods. Money is made from know-how, not from production costs.
The knowledge gained by meteorologists is also important, as well as the information provided by complex harvesting machinery equipped with navigators and onboard computers, and logistics. Without all of this, the harvest would be ten times smaller, and thus, we feed 90% of the population primarily with information, while only 10% is fed with “material” bread.
The influence of information on society will only grow each year. Even now, a family of farmers can comfortably operate on tens of thousands of hectares, hiring combine operators and purchasing elevator services, effectively realizing the idea of producing food through information. At the same time, bread itself is not information, and knowing the chemical composition of fertilizer won’t fill your stomach if you don’t have a field to apply it to. So, what is information from an economic perspective? It is a managing resource, just like capital was not long ago. Before capitalism, the land itself was such a resource. Before land, it was physical strength, also in and of itself.
Table of Contents
Informism
Private information is a common source of nearly all current major fortunes.
Oscar Wilde
In the previous chapter, we traced how the ruling class gained influence in society through the ownership of a key resource that granted them privileges and allowed them to exploit others. This tool, or exclusive resource enshrined in legal norms, constituted the essence of the social structure:
- slavery is power;
- feudalism — land;
- capitalism — capital;
- informism — information.
Let’s start with the basics: what is the main “tool of the trade” for a bureaucrat? That’s right — a document. And a document is information. Whenever a bureaucrat asks you for a document, they are exercising their power over you. Any document you need from a bureaucrat will also not be obtained easily or for free. A bureaucrat managing a corporation also “feeds” on documents.
Who do you have to “grease” to sign a contract? Who’s “slicing” the budget? How much does a license for alcohol production cost? And in reality, how much do you actually have to pay? How much does a permit for converting an office into a non-residential space cost? And what about converting it into a residential space? And in reality, how much do they actually pay? We are all at the mercy of documents and paperwork. From the moment we are born until the moment we die. You can’t be born without a piece of paper, and you can’t die without one either.
However, it’s not just about the paperwork. The paperwork is merely an illustration. Control over information also provides the ability to manipulate. If a bureaucrat dislikes someone’s business, it can be easily “killed” with a single phone call. The bureaucrat is the master of all the money in the country or corporation. They decide whether to build a bridge over a river, to open or close a factory, or to allow goods to cross the border. They have the power to crush any capitalist and to elevate anyone they choose.
Simple possession of information that is considered a trade secret or a private matter gives officials significant advantages. Naturally, it is in the interest of the ruling class to strengthen this information control. Of course, the ruling class will continue to create more and more laws and regulations aimed at such reinforcement. The reasons can vary, but the outcome is the same — more and more information is concentrated in the hands of officials.
Information from “naked” scanners at airports, surveillance cameras, databases of discount card customers, and transactions from payment cards… The ruling class is increasingly controlling information. This includes the media and the internet — even satellite tracking in orbit is carried out exclusively by state structures. Information is used to manage society.
In the mid-twentieth century, the USSR even made attempts to create a unified computerized information network. These efforts failed, not only or primarily due to technical issues (during the development of nuclear weapons or space exploration, even more complex problems were solved), but rather because of the resistance from civilian and military officials, who instinctively sensed the prospect of finding themselves out of work.
Why didn’t the internet emerge in the USSR?
In the 1950s and 1960s, cybernetics was a “fashionable trend” — scientists enthusiastically explored previously unseen possibilities for automating accounting and managing the country’s economy. This was facilitated by the highly centralized, standardized, and planned nature of the Soviet economy. The popular press began to refer to computers as “machines of communism,” and even the CIA became concerned: a special department was created to study the Soviet cybernetic threat. This department released a series of secret reports, noting, among other strategic threats, the Soviet Union’s intention to create a “unified information network.” Based on these reports, in October 1962, a close advisor to President John Kennedy wrote a secret memorandum stating that the “Soviet decision to bet on cybernetics” would give the Soviet Union “a tremendous advantage.” [37]. :.
“By 1970, the USSR could have a completely new production technology encompassing entire enterprises and industry complexes, managed by a closed feedback loop using self-learning computers.”
In December 1957, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR proposed the establishment of a computing center in each economic region to address tasks related to planning, statistics, technical design, and scientific research.
However, officials were wary of such initiatives—the prospect of replacing an army of bureaucrats with a network of computing centers was quite clear.
In October 1962, Viktor Glushkov, the director of the Kyiv Institute of Cybernetics, published an article in “Pravda” warning that without radical reorganization of economic planning, by 1980, planning would have to occupy “the entire adult population of the Soviet Union.” Glushkov proposed the creation of a “unified state automatic system for processing planned economic information and managing the economy” based on a network of computing centers.
The Unified State Network of Computing Centers (USNCC) was supposed to consist of six thousand local data collection and primary processing centers, fifty regional centers in major cities, and one central computing center in Moscow.
The network was supposed to provide “full automation of the process of collecting, transmitting, and processing primary data.”
The authors of the project hoped to completely eliminate the widespread practice of data manipulation in reports sent “up the chain” by using computers: “Only such an organization of the information system can provide all planning and management bodies with accurate and complete information as if it were coming directly from the source, bypassing any intermediate stages, thus eliminating the possibility of data leakage and distortion.” Anticipating resistance from the bureaucratic apparatus to the new system, the authors made efforts to close all potential loopholes for circumventing the automated data collection process. The project stipulated that “the circulation of economic information outside the Unified State Automated Information System is not permitted.”
Glushkov believed that the new automated management system would oversee all production, payroll, and retail, and therefore proposed eliminating cash and fully transitioning to electronic payments: “[Such a system could] if not completely eliminate, then at least significantly limit phenomena such as theft, bribery, and speculation.”
However, Glushkov’s proposal to abolish paper money did not receive approval from the party authorities. Glushkov aimed to create a comprehensive system that would define, regulate, and fully control the management process of the Soviet economy. Essentially, he proposed transforming the entire Soviet bureaucratic pyramid: “…it is necessary to meticulously design the working day and working week of each official, create detailed classifiers of duties and documents, and clearly (in terms of time and individuals) define the procedure for their review, etc.” The plan for the Unified State Automated System for Management and Control (EGSVC) also stipulated that approximately one million workers in accounting, planning, and management would be “released” and able to “transition to the sphere of direct production.” These radical proposals met with fierce resistance from the Soviet management apparatus.
In the end, the EGSVC plan was effectively buried, and in its place, numerous departmental automated management systems emerged. Officials from the sectoral ministries concluded that they could benefit from computerization without losing an ounce of their power. Each ministry built its own computing center and began creating an automated management system (AMS) for its internal needs. From 1971 to 1975, the number of such systems increased almost sevenfold. Sectoral AMS often used incompatible hardware and software and were not connected by any interdepartmental computer network. By creating specialized AMS, the sectoral ministries laid the technical foundation for strengthening centralized control over the industrial enterprises under their jurisdiction. With this organization, ministries no longer needed to share their management information—in other words, their power—with any competing agencies.
Based on the materials: Gerovitch, S. “InterNyet: Why the Soviet Union Did Not Build a Nationwide Computer Network” History and Technology 24 (2008): 335-50 [37]. Пожалуйста, предоставьте текст, который вы хотите перевести.
Meanwhile, in the USA, the military network ARPANET was taking its first steps. [38]. The Soviet military had something similar, but as was customary in the USSR, it was completely secret and closed off. The U.S. Department of Defense was much more open, and eventually, the Internet emerged from ARPANET. [39]. The remnants of the Soviet unified information system were finally buried with the collapse of the USSR.
However, not everything was buried. The security agencies know the value of information. In the countries of the former USSR, just like in any other sufficiently developed country, intelligence services have systems where all information about individuals is collected — their phone numbers and call history, online account details, document numbers, border crossing dates, property transactions, and bank accounts. Access to such systems is granted to security personnel and the ruling elite.
In the USA, there was a project called “Echelon.” [40]. that has now evolved into something more serious and at a different level. With the help of information gathering systems and game theory, the United States is already able to predict, within certain limits, The text for translation: [41]. the results of diplomatic negotiations before they begin and conduct negotiations in a way that achieves the desired outcome.
The concept of privacy today seems more hypocritical and one-sided than ever. [42]. And the authorities will care about privacy precisely in order to maintain control over information. [43-48] Orwell wrote. [49]. About “Big Brother”? Here he is, nice to meet you. Now we can look at the well-known Nobel works of George Akerlof, Kenneth Arrow, Michael Spence, Mirrlees, and Vickrey from an interesting angle, showing that the foundation of any business lies in the uneven distribution of information, and in any deal, the one who knows more wins.
From the perspective of social structure, we are interested in the asymmetry of information distribution in relationships where one party is more informed or has even monopolized the information. [8]. the right to information for a hired manager (official) providing management services to someone who is less informed or even deprived of the fundamental right to know [50]. to the owner of the property (funds, collected taxes).
Asymmetry of information in microeconomics (English: asymmetric information, also referred to in Russian literature as imperfect or incomplete information) refers to the uneven distribution of information about a product between the parties involved in a transaction. Typically, the seller knows more about the product than the buyer, although the opposite situation can also occur. In other words, you might be deceived at the moment of purchase.
This property was first noted by Kenneth Arrow in his 1963 article titled “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care.” [51]. Текст для перевода: ..
George Akerlof in his work [52]. In 1970, he built a mathematical model of a market with imperfect information. He noted that in such a market, the average price of a product tends to decrease, even for goods of perfect quality. It is even possible that the market could collapse to the point of disappearance.
Due to the imperfections in information, dishonest sellers may offer lower-quality (cheaper to produce) products, deceiving the buyer. As a result, many consumers, aware of the generally low quality, will avoid making purchases or will only agree to buy at a lower price. In response, manufacturers of quality goods may establish brands and product certifications to distinguish themselves from the average seller in the eyes of consumers and maintain their market share. The important role of brands in a developed market economy is to serve as a sign of consistent quality.
Consumers, when evaluating the quality of products, shape the reputation of markets and sellers. The emergence of the internet has significantly facilitated the process of information exchange among consumers. By allowing them to directly learn about a product’s characteristics or its reputation, the internet reduces information asymmetry.
Michael Spence proposed the signaling theory. [53,54] In a situation of information asymmetry, individuals indicate which type they belong to, thereby reducing the degree of asymmetry. Initially, a job search scenario is chosen as the model. The employer is interested in hiring trained or trainable personnel. All applicants, of course, claim that they are highly capable of learning. However, only the applicants themselves possess information about the actual state of affairs. This is the situation of information asymmetry.
Michael Spence suggested that graduating from an institution, for example, serves as a reliable signal — this person is capable of learning. After all, it is easier for someone who can learn to graduate, and therefore, they are a good fit for the employer. Conversely, if a person was unable to graduate, their learning abilities are quite questionable.
The theoretically sound solutions to the problem of information asymmetry, such as mandatory product certification, licensing, and the establishment of government oversight bodies for consumer protection, have not eliminated the issue. Instead, they have merely shifted the resource of information asymmetry from the hands of capitalists to those of officials, who, along with corporate bureaucrats, have formed the current ruling class—the bureaucratic elite. This has definitively confirmed that capitalists no longer rule the world, and it is extremely difficult to label the existing social order as capitalism. [12]. Текст для перевода: ..
The new ruling class has already come to power. The internet is being used by governments and corporations to maintain their monopoly on information and to invade the privacy and personal lives of citizens. [40]. The coverage of cities with surveillance cameras, used by the bureaucratic elite not only “for security purposes” but also for their own opportunistic goals, is already a reality. No one has access to databases containing personal information except for the special services—typical representatives of a netocracy. Banks and corporations are hunting for various registers of potential clients to use them for marketing and risk underwriting. However, alongside the flourishing of this system, signs of the imminent end of informationalism are already visible. A striking, though not the only, example of the desperate struggle of the ruling class for information resources, given its obvious losing position, is the modern war against “piracy.” [55]. Текст для перевода: ..
Means of maintaining control
Morality and Taboo
In any social system, the ruling class has taken measures to expand the influence of its means of exploitation and has also sought to strengthen control over that means.
- In a slaveholding society, the issue of acquiring new slaves was resolved through raids on neighboring communities.
- In the feudal society, there was an era of great geographical discoveries.
- Under capitalism, there was the industrial revolution and robotization;
- In informism, there is informatization and computerization.
We live in an information society, and information technology is a tool needed by the ruling class. No one would have besieged Troy, no one would have sent Columbus to America, and no one would have paid Thomas Edison if it weren’t beneficial to those in power. The informatization of modern society is an expansion of the ruling class’s sphere of influence. Informatization, in its current form, is a one-sided process. The state and corporations know more and more about us, while we know very little about them. Moreover, we often know much less about each other than the intelligence agencies or Facebook know about each of us. One of the main obstacles to such knowledge for us is the concept of “personal privacy” or privacy.
The perception of the value of personal information, which drives people to advocate for privacy protection and to prevent the sharing of personal information with neighbors, is naturally supported by its social nature. [19]. or artificially, by someone who monopolizes their right to such information. In other words, it’s not allowed to eavesdrop on phone conversations, but intelligence agencies can do it, supposedly for the sake of security.
The categorization of certain things as taboo is one of the most convenient means of controlling society, including modern society. [56]. It’s best to taboo the most basic, essential things: food, excretion, sex. [57]. Breathing is harder to taboo, just like heartbeat, for obvious reasons. However, there are taboos related to breathing as well: for example, it’s considered impolite to yawn in public. A number of religious cults and meditative practices engage in regulated, conscious breathing—breathing in a specific way or counting breaths. The right to knowledge is one of the fundamental human rights. So fundamental that it is not mentioned in any constitution. Similarly, due to their obviousness, rights related to natural bodily functions are not explicitly stated either. This right can also be subject to taboo.
The rationale behind the taboo on disclosing personal information is rooted in logical motives. Even the most absurd and archaic rituals or prejudices are echoes of once-functional behavior models. Every individual has an inherent right to keep secrets. There exists a personal, inviolable informational territory that is off-limits to outsiders. Where is the boundary of this territory? The answer is always subjective. It depends on one’s profession, social status, the society itself, and the individual’s character. When the territory of privacy expands or contracts, some places become worse while others improve. At the extremes, the negatives clearly outweigh the positives. If the territory is reduced to zero, a person is as exposed and defenseless as a laboratory rat in a numbered cage. If everything is shrouded in secrecy, a person becomes infinitely lonely, and almost all the benefits of modern civilization are inaccessible to them. Somewhere between these poles lies an optimum—the most advantageous point in terms of comfort and safety.
Why do we protect our territory? What makes us feel uncomfortable when our secrets are revealed? We fear that others will harm us by knowing our secrets. They might steal, mock, or strike at our most vulnerable points. If there’s no way to cause harm, there’s no point in keeping a secret. If you live in a country with low crime and corruption rates and reasonable, moderate taxes, then there’s no reason to go to great lengths to hide your income. If you’re surrounded by people who don’t care about your religious beliefs or sexual preferences, then there’s no need to pretend to go (or not go) to church and to carefully display “high morals.” If in your country the outcomes of all elections are not known in advance, and journalists who publish scathing critiques and meticulous investigations about presidents and ministers are all alive, well, and walking free, then there’s no reason to hide your low opinion of the intelligence and morality of the current government.
So, privacy has no value in itself. It is only important under unfavorable external conditions. In tropical countries, people manage with almost no clothing. Closer to the poles, they bundle up in several layers. Notice! Clothing is the simplest and most obvious, yet also the most inconvenient and unpromising way to combat the cold. It gets in the way, sometimes constricts, and limits movement. But how else can one stop suffering from the cold? One option is to move to warmer places, that is, to escape from bad conditions. However, this is not always possible or acceptable. Another option is to build a warm house, which means partially changing the conditions. You can also start hardening your body and reduce the amount of clothing, which means changing your reaction to external conditions. All three of these methods require much greater effort at the beginning and come with risks, but they provide a much more sustainable and comfortable solution.
It is impossible to completely give up “clothing.” However, it is important to remember that this is, in a sense, an emergency, temporary measure. Greater safety and comfort in the future can only be achieved by addressing the source of the threat itself or by making ourselves immune to the threat without any additional protection.
Instead of hiding ourselves, it’s better to strive for states and corporations to have fewer secrets from us. Do you want to have a complete dossier on us? Fine, but don’t hide your own activities either. Even now, the necessity to publicly report, document, and provide citizens and shareholders with information about their work significantly restricts the hands of unscrupulous “servants of the people.” If they have more information about us, then we should have more information about them to ensure that no one is abusing the knowledge of our secrets. This is a fair exchange, whereas maintaining privacy is not. Who benefits more from keeping their secrets—an average citizen who, as a child, stole money from their parents a couple of times, participated in a few drunken fights in their youth without serious consequences, and in adulthood cheated on their spouse a few times with random acquaintances they forgot the names of a year later, or a politician intoxicated by free rein and impunity, who has embezzled billions from the budget, “ordered” a couple of competitors in the wild ’90s, and maintains an entire harem of mistresses?
This is a rational approach to the problem of the mystery of personal life. However, traditional morality is much stricter when it comes to privacy. “You can’t, because you can never!” The imposition of taboos is the easiest way to achieve moral enslavement. A system of taboos is the most effective means of keeping the masses in obedience. Through taboos, one can make a person constantly reflect on the question, “Am I doing the right thing?” keeping thoughts about the source of the taboo at the forefront of their mind. There is no religion that does not have taboos. There is no political system that does not have unreasonable and illogical prohibitions and prescriptions. The more skillful the imposition of taboos, the clearer the control.
Taboo is a socio-cultural prohibition on certain actions. The basis for a taboo can be religious beliefs, traditions, or morals. Violating a taboo provokes a sharply negative reaction from members of society—fear, anger, or disgust. The word “taboo” comes from the Tongan word “tapu,” meaning forbidden or sacred. Complex systems of taboo were characteristic of Polynesian tribes and regulated nearly all aspects of Polynesian life. To some extent, taboos exist in all cultures and religions around the world. Taboos can be related to almost any area of human life: sex, death, food, the display of certain body parts, the utterance of specific words, the use of psychoactive substances, defecation, urination, and other physiological functions.
There are no universal, human taboos, but some of them (such as the prohibition against cannibalism, intentional murder, and incest) are found almost everywhere. Taboos can serve various functions, but it often happens that a taboo remains in place long after the real reason for the prohibition has disappeared. Taboos often extend to the discussion of tabooed actions. Instead of a complete ban, “indecent” words are often replaced with euphemisms.
The concept of privacy emerged, among other reasons, as a response to the prevalence of various taboos, serving as a “release” and a way to relax and be ourselves. However, as many areas of life have become less taboo, privacy itself has turned into a taboo. A taboo similar to the prohibition against walking around naked in public. We believe that society can exist under conditions of not centralized, but rather public control over information, including personal, governmental, and corporate data, gradually freeing itself from taboos on knowledge and the violation of privacy.
Security, confidentiality, and copyright
If a people choose safety over freedom, in the end, they lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
Another common pretext for blocking access to information used by officials is security. It is precisely for the sake of “security” that the ruling class claims the right to have a monopoly on citizens’ personal information.
In the name of “security,” there is a “fight against terrorism.” For this reason, huge sums of budgetary (that is, our) money are spent on secret and top-secret (from us) state needs. “Security” has become an excellent pretext for introducing censorship and restricting rights and freedoms, for increasing funding for special services and expanding their powers. This is very convenient when discussing issues that threaten the authority of the special services and the state—such as pointing out their obvious helplessness. [58]. A prohibitive system in the fight against drug trafficking can easily be turned into “propaganda for drug use,” and almost anything can be labeled as “extremism.”
Through arguments about “safety,” officials exaggerate their controlling role, telling everyone that without their oversight, entrepreneurs would start adding cyanide to cookies to give them an almond flavor. Yet these same officials can turn a blind eye when products are stuffed with various additives or when the contents of a product don’t match its name at all. The main thing is that everything looks good on paper. Officials essentially claim that every entrepreneur is a potential criminal without morals or conscience, ready to kill for an extra penny, while in reality, it is often the official who plays the role of the criminal, accepting bribes to allow violations of any bans, including those that are quite reasonable.
The authorities do everything for the sake of security. The only question is, whose security are they concerned about? When we want to ensure safety in our homes, we do everything except protect our personal information. We create shared hallways with our neighbors, and they learn more about us. We hire a concierge for the entrance, losing the ability to discreetly bring in a lover. We introduce ourselves to people whose trust we need. We open up. And any such revelation is a narrowing of our own personal space.
An ideally safe community is one where the walls are transparent, people are visible, and everyone knows everything about each other. However, communities that come close to this state are usually poorly managed by bureaucratic systems. Think back to the collectivization and dekulakization of the 1920s. People in villages lived with those “transparent walls,” making it impossible to reliably monopolize the flow of information from these individuals for one’s own benefit.
The meat departments of supermarkets literally have transparent walls so that customers can see what the patties are made of. Is it really that difficult to organize similar public oversight for any kind of production? At least in the form of tours for schoolchildren.
On one hand, the ruling class maintains that the recipe for cookies and the technology for their production are commercial secrets. On the other hand, precisely for this reason, and supposedly in the interest of the public, they constantly burden entrepreneurs, demanding payment for licenses, “inspections,” and even outright extorting bribes or “assistance.” But don’t competing bakers already know, in principle, what cookies can be made from and how? Has chromatography and mass spectrometry been abolished, which allows for reverse engineering of any manufactured product? Or is it really that difficult to simply “buy” the official who is aware of this recipe?
It is precisely because it is easier to turn to an official for information and pay them than to buy a chromatograph that this system of “certification” exists. The ruling class maintains its power over information by manipulating laws and morality, monopolizing its right to information about specific individuals and processes.
The existing system for protecting intellectual property has long been inadequate to meet the needs of society. Originally designed to guard against unfair competition, copyright and patent laws are now turned against all of us. Thanks to the internet and computers, each of us can now do things that were once only available to corporations, often at little to no cost. We can replicate any information in any quantity—now we are their competitors. The only sensible solution is to negotiate directly with the authors and pay them directly, without intermediaries like publishers who have monopolized the market. But this does not suit media corporations. This is why the emergence of digital content stores, where the role of the publisher is much less significant than before, such as iTunes or the App Store, with prices significantly lower than in traditional stores, has only recently become possible, when it became clear that file sharing could not be effectively suppressed. In fact, creating something like iTunes was technically feasible a decade ago, during the Napster era. Even now, major pirate trackers surpass any legal store in terms of user convenience and selection, constrained as they are by the copyright system within which they must operate.
Patents are increasingly playing the role of a brake on progress rather than a driver of it. “Patent trolls”—individuals or entities that specialize in filing patent lawsuits without engaging in any actual production—essentially engage in extortion and blackmail, exploiting loopholes in the law. Legal protection against these “trolls” is a significant part of the costs for any high-tech company.
Patent protection also raises the entry barrier for new companies looking to utilize high technologies and modern inventions. It might seem that there’s nothing wrong with this—it’s only fair to allow the author and inventor to be the first to “reap the rewards.” However, it has never been easier to start small-scale production of just about anything. The economy is becoming more democratized. Just like with piracy, soon almost all of us will find ourselves in the position of an “unfair” competitor. At that point, this “unfairness” will lose all meaning.
In the past, only a very small part of society could benefit from the unlimited reproduction or other use of someone else’s intellectual property, and this was detrimental to society as a whole, as the author could not receive proper compensation, while consumers were still forced to pay pirates. However, the overall public good from a sharp decrease in the price of intellectual property and the almost free dissemination of any information often outweighs the loss of excess profits for rights holders, who are, by definition, monopolists under the existing scheme. After all, every author is also a consumer. They are interested in being able to use as freely as possible everything created by others in their work. How many interesting books have not been adapted into films because not even the author, but some heirs—who may have drained the life out of them during their lifetime—turned out to be a bit greedier than necessary? How much effort is required to use copyright-protected “source materials” in derivative works? It is no coincidence that scientific discoveries are not subject to patenting or copyright. Unlike objects in show business or specific technical innovations, they are too general in nature and form the very foundation of civilization. Restrictions on their use would significantly hinder progress and would be unjustifiably costly for society.
Advertising and propaganda
The worst enemy of any propaganda is intellectualism.
Joseph Goebbels
Like previous methods of maintaining control, neither advertising nor propaganda are specifically designed tools for oppression and subjugation. In their time, they played (and continue to play, for example, the promotion of a healthy lifestyle) a significant positive role. However, there is no such thing that cannot be misused.
Advertising plays a huge role in maintaining information asymmetry in the market. Modern advertising itself is a product of such asymmetry. Once, advertisements were simple and straightforward. The only inexpensive mass medium was a black-and-white ad on small-format paper. Business owners typically wrote the ads themselves, merely listing the features and benefits of their products or naively boasting (“The best cream-filled donuts in the Solar System are only here! 200% quality!”). Today, advertising widely uses color, sound, and movement, and most importantly, advertisers rely on a vast body of psychological knowledge, techniques, and tricks accumulated over the last century. They know much more about us, how our brains work, and our feelings and emotions than we do ourselves. That’s why we are sold not a deodorant, but a sense of self-confidence; not a car, but the image of a cool macho; not a stale product with an expiring shelf life, but a “unique opportunity to save.” There is zero real information about the product’s properties that would allow for a conscious choice of the best option in such ads. It is merely a specially modulated informational noise designed to manipulate the atavistic structures of our subconscious. [59]. Текст для перевода: ..
Propaganda [60]. It has long been considered a weapon of mass destruction. The term “information warfare” is used quite officially. For all dictatorial regimes of the past century, propaganda has been one of the most important pillars. [61]. Democratic states are not averse to it either. Just look at the hysteria surrounding terrorism. In reality, the threat of terrorism hardly exists at all. It’s a phantom, an illusion, carefully stoked by the security agencies.
From 1970 to 2003 (including September 11, 2001), the average mortality rate from terrorist acts in the United States was 1 in 3.5 million. This is only twice as high as the mortality rate from lightning strikes. It is four times less likely than drowning while taking a bath. It is 500 times less likely than dying in a car accident. And it is 7,000 times less likely than dying from cancer. In the U.S. budget for 2012, $2.7 billion was allocated specifically for combating terrorism. If government spending were distributed proportionally to actual danger, then funding for cancer treatment would need to be 7,000 times greater than that for combating terrorism. This would amount to 7,000 * 2,700,000,000 = 18,900,000,000,000. Eighteen trillion nine hundred billion! This is not only 23.8 times larger than the U.S. healthcare budget but also five and a half times larger than the total budget for 2012. [62,63] Текст для перевода: ..
Based on the materials: Mueller, John. “Hardly Existential: Terrorism as A Hazard to Human Life” [63].
The beginning of the second decade of the 21st century was marked by a series of “velvet revolutions” in Arab countries. Perhaps the reason for the Arab uprisings lies in the fact that all the countries experiencing these tumultuous events faced a crisis of information flow? They all built a model of social organization that served the interests of the ruling class. The subordinate position of the rest of society was achieved through a mass propaganda machine, which anyone who had been in these countries could easily observe, for example, in the form of portraits of leaders on every corner. And those who understood the language and could grasp what was being discussed in television broadcasts found little distinction between what was shown there and the plots of Soviet television during the height of stagnation.
Propaganda has always existed. Even Plato, when discussing the structure of an ideal state, suggested filtering mythology for educational purposes. [64]. However, it was precisely in the early 20th century that propaganda in Europe, armed with the mass media that had emerged by that time, became the “absolute weapon” against which society had no tools or means of resistance. Everyone heard certain words from all sides and thought that everyone else agreed with them, even though it was the same broadcast playing through different speakers. The elite rallied society into a crowd of like-minded individuals, ready to sacrifice something personal in the present for the sake of an idea or a brighter future. In the formula of “bread and circuses,” it became possible to provide less bread by compromising the quality of the spectacles.
Any local rebellion was quickly suppressed and did not spread precisely because the authorities swiftly and effectively blocked information leaks and presented events to the rest of the population in a “correct” manner. Lenin’s tactic of “post, telegraph, telephone” was not just words, but a brilliant idea for controlling public consciousness. Society had no immunity to propaganda.
The Great War gave Western society a serious vaccination against it. People learned to identify it, assess it, and understand the true motives of propagandists. Perhaps natural selection played a role, and those who survived were the ones who weren’t completely brainwashed and who ultimately decided that family and children were more important than illusory ideals.
The winners were not so lucky. In particular, the USSR and the USA. In these countries, propaganda was still a very powerful tool for controlling society. The immunity of the USA eventually held up—by the 1950s, journalists had “buried” Senator McCarthy, in the 1960s Martin Luther King dealt a crushing blow to racism, and the hippies challenged the Vietnam War and puritanical morals. Despite this, propaganda in the USA still remains a relatively effective tool for mass control. However, the propagandistic slogan of the “citadel of democracy,” which is still exploited by politicians, forces them to at least somewhat align with that image. Richard Nixon felt this acutely when his career ended in a scandalous resignation. In the USSR, there was no civil society at all. The Party had a monopoly on the information space. But Afghanistan, Chernobyl, Pavlov’s reforms, the August Coup, glasnost, “enemy voices,” and the increasingly noticeable economic disparity that seeped through the cracks of the “iron curtain”—this was too much for the propaganda machine to effectively counter grassroots protest without resorting to shootings. [65]. Текст для перевода: ..
The flow of information created by propaganda keeps society’s thoughts directed in one way. The source of troubles is sought everywhere but in one’s own government. The goals imposed on people as priorities can lead anywhere but to the improvement of their family’s well-being. And even if there are some “kitchen conversations,” they remain a secret and do not lead to uniting people around an alternative idea simply because those who “talk in the kitchen” believe that like-minded dissenters are a minority. It turns out that the stability of society depends on the stability of the information flow. If an information counterflow emerges in society, related to differing assessments of certain events by the authorities and the people, then the stability of society declines. The more corrupt and ineffective the state apparatus, the greater the discrepancies between real life and propagandistic illusions, and the smaller the counterflow needed for its collapse.
If we look at the problem of societal stability as an issue of the stability of the informational “wind” or flow, the situation in the Middle East becomes clear. An idea-less, corrupt bureaucracy has failed to cope with the challenge of the 21st century—the internet, with its flat surface where everything is laid bare, allowing anyone to easily find like-minded individuals, not feel like an outcast, and therefore express themselves even more loudly. Any event that propaganda could previously hide or distort “correctly” is now available through word of mouth. The downward flow of propaganda cannot keep up with the upward surge. Society is bubbling and boiling over.
The Arab “velvet revolutions” erupted without the involvement of prominent leaders or figures. There was no Lenin, no Robespierre, no Gandhi. This is a characteristic feature of modern mass protests. For instance, the leaders of the Russian opposition were clearly as surprised by the scale of the rallies following the 2011 parliamentary elections as Putin was. Everything happened almost spontaneously, yet very organized. The internet played a crucial role.
Of course, the internet was not the cause of the mass protests. In Arab countries, there was a sharp rise in food prices against the backdrop of a rapidly growing youth population due to a demographic explosion, while in Russia, it was a “rebellion of the well-fed” against election fraud. However, the internet synchronized and coordinated the scattered and uncertain protest sentiments. Uprisings in the Middle East erupted almost simultaneously, and hardly anyone believed that any sizable rallies could take place in Russia until they actually began.
The internet is unlike any previous mass media, which often turned into tools of mass propaganda. Anyone who has tried their hand at internet marketing knows that the crowd of social media users is no more controllable than a wave in the ocean. Yes, you can harness its energy, but you cannot direct it at will. The internet and social networks primarily serve as homogenizers of opinion. The internet allows everyone to know the same facts, participate in the same discussions, and arrive at the same conclusions. And when everyone shares the same opinion, mobilizing people for coordinated mass actions requires little effort.
So far, all successful political projects in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have relied on a “non-internet” electorate for their political victories. For instance, neither Viktor Yushchenko nor Yulia Tymoshenko managed to maintain control over the spontaneously gathered crowd that lasted for several weeks in Maidan in 2004. However, this crowd, armed with shared knowledge and facts, was able to push for early elections. What politicians from the last century perceive as “the hand of the special services” is actually a fundamentally different phenomenon. Yushchenko and his associates simply did not understand what had brought them to power, and instead of addressing the needs of the rising movement and opening up, they first built a fence around the Presidential Administration, which was a visible metaphor for the closed nature of power and its reliance on old propaganda techniques—such as glorifying the Orange Revolution, and so on. Lukashenko in Belarus will lose power with every retired pensioner and every public sector worker and proletarian who goes online. The same goes for Putin.