The modern era has seen several radical changes in society, many of them generated by changes in technology and by the wide array of social structures that technology holds sway over. As one German radical wrote about the rise of the industrial/scientific revolutions in the early 19th century:

The [capitalist class] cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish [this epoch] from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their taint of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all newformed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into the air, all that is holy is profanced, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind. -Karl Marx

The rise of the modern industrial state destroyed the foundations of the traditional ruralaristocratic state system. In its place rose the modern nation-state, with its mass ideologies of democracy, militarism, and consumerism. This revolutionary technological process is now taking another great leap forward through the medium of cybernetics. What will the future hold as the cybernetics revolution spreads over the globe?

War, Politics, etc.

The modern warrior is becoming a union of man and machine. The United States has utilized cybernetics since the 1960s. Sensors, infrared scopes, and television-guided missiles were all employed in Vietnam. This trend is even more apparent today, with the utilization of battlefield computers and other advanced systems.

The reliance on technology will lead to a change in the very nature of armies themselves. The era of citizen-armies based on mass conscription may be on the way out. Cybernetic weaponry will be expensive, and cybernetically equipped armies will require a higher degree of training. Consequently, small professional forces may become neccessary. A hi­tech warrior class maybe increasingly distanced from the citizenry.

Although these hi-tech forces will have supremacy in conventional warfare, they will be increasingly unable to deal with various forms of low-intensity conflict (such as insurgencies and terrorism). Low­intensity conflict stresses political over technological means, and it usually requires massive manpower to counter. This problem will lead to an asymmetrical military balance in which the advanced nations will have general global military supremacy, but guerrilla-type forces will gain local ascendancy. But what of the political objectives for which wars are fought?

One of the implications of cybernetics is a new twist in the communications revolution that began in the 19th century. The development of telegraph, then the telephone, radio, and later television vastly, increased the power of people to communicate.

Governments attempted to gain control of these capabilities because they were vital for the conduct of modern total warfare. Communications are a primary means of propaganda: people can be stirred to support wars through exploitation of radio broadcasting and motion pictures. Television received some of the blame for American failure in Vietnam, and the US Department of Defense made considerable efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to ensure favorable news reporting in war zones.

Cybernetics has economic implications as well. Encryption and the developing technology of digital "cash" allow people to circumvent government restrictions on currency transfers. The standard government custom of seizing people's monetary assets becomes virtually impossible because, with the execution of a single pre-programmed command, one can transfer one's accounts to any number of secure locations globally.

In the past, communications were part of the hierarchical, mass-based systems that had arisen parallel to industrial society (which was a hierarchical, mass-mobilized system) and modern armies (also hierarchically organized and based on mass mobilization). Cybernetics has reversed this trend. Cybernetic communications, based today on the Internet and World Wide Web, arise not because of top-down orders or market surveys, but due to the spontaneous actions of individuals. Cybernetic communications give the individual the capacity for immediate feedback. Political decisions, for example, can be criticized and re-shaped to suit current needs. Similarly, the mass media, which is dependent upon the decisions of a few corporate leaders, can be superseded by cybernetic systems in which individuals choose their entertainment, news, and educational programming.

No longer are mass movements restricted to the hierarchical system of organization that has been the hallmark of modern revolutionary organization. The former revolutionary system was based on selected cadres mobilizing front organizations that in turn mobilized the masses. This process took years or even decades to build an organization strong enough to challenge the state. Now, there is a continually shifting pattern of individuals who, acting in concert with others, are able to produce results immediately. What has happened is that organization no longer takes place in physical space (for example, a meeting hall) but in cyberspace, the common ground of cybernetic/computer operators. Possession of a computer, a modem, and a place to link it gives the individual the following capabilities:

• a secure means of communications (through encryption);
• the ability to maintain contact with liter­ally millions of other individuals;
• a means to generate propaganda (through communications and printouts of them);
• the ability to penetrate the enemy's com­puter systems and neutralize them.

The implications are staggering. In effect, an individual can become a one-person revolutionary cadre. Multiply this process by millions of similar individuals, and it becomes apparent that any security measures based on traditional means are inevitably doomed to failure.

A good example of this process is the conflict over Key Escrow Encryption (the "Clipper Chip"). Key Escrow Encryption was proposed by the United States National Security Agency as a means to standardize encryption in the United Sates - with the provision that the United States government would maintain copies of the encryption keys. A protest movement against this proposal quickly mobilized over the Internet, a movement that was successful enough to block passage of the Clipper Chip legislation. Significantly, this battle was fought largely in cyberspace.

Nor is this process restricted to the United States. A case in point is the abrupt collapse of the Soviet Union. A superstate that had dominated Eurasia for most of the 20th century suddenly disintegrated, in part because of the ability of dissidents to exploit communications and the media to organize.

A hallmark of cybernetic communications is the rapidity with which events can be generated. The immediacy of television news, in conjunction with cybernetically enhanced communications, has allowed great shifts in political fortunes. Because people can communicate routinely on an international level the power of the nation state is being challenged. People can form alliances that are outside of state infrastructures. One implication is that people's loyalties will no longer be to their national governments but to whatever cybernetically organized community they happen to choose.

The Globalized Economy

The revolution in communications parallels factors that affect national economies. One has been the globalization of the economy. Business transactions routinely take place across national borders. Again, this process is enhanced by modern technology and allows instantaneous communications on a world-ide basis. National borders become irrelevant because it is now possible to circumvent them through the use of communications technology.

Major corporations have diversified to the point where they are truly international organizations in scope and operations. In the the past, one could talk of an "American" (or "British" or "German" or "Japanese", etc. ) economy. But today, all national economies are now so interlocked that it becomes impossible to make such distinctions. The end result has been a shift to an entirely global mode of production; and with this shift have come major changes in society. Automobile parts, for example, may be manufactured in one country, assembled in another, and sold worldwide.

During the past two decades, major American corporations have moved their industrial infrastructure out of the United States and into the "third world" (that is, the underdeveloped countries). In these countries, labor costs were cheap, regulations few, and unions (if any) compliant. As a result, factory employment fell from a third of the US work force in the 1950s to 20 percent in the 1990s. Much of the slack was taken up by the service economy and by various information industries.

With the reallocation of American industry abroad, there has been a concommitment decline in the importance of American labor unions. This trend has in turn led to a decline in the political power of the American middle class as opposed to the power of corporate-sponsored political action committees. One of the major losers in this process has been the American inner cities, which, deprived of their traditional industrial employment base, have progressively decayed in the late 20th century.

These trends have also developed abroad. Although unions were one of the major political forces from the 19th century onwards, it is becoming apparent that in the 21st century they will be rendered increasingly weaker, simply because any major corporation that is threatened by labor agitation can simply move elsewhere. The response of a government might be to nationalize the industries; but, given the nature of the world economy, this policy would prove to be suicidal. Corporations can simply shift their operations elsewhere, and place sufficient restrictions on the flow of capital to render a hostile state economically impotent.

The implications of this process cannot be underestimated: the basis of much of politics for the last two centuries has been the mobilization of labor - indeed, the working class was claimed to be the basis for the entire communist movement. The new global economy has effectively rendered communism obsolete largely by making the class struggle irrelevant. In the place of the working class will arise the new class of cybernetic operators. They will become the key group to lead revolutionary change.

As major corporations invest in third-world countries, there is a growing displacement of their populace. Millions of dispossessed citizens drift to the cities, whose social support services, overburdened by the influx, collapse. Or people migrate en masse to North America looking for employment. (The continual guerrilla warfare throughout much of Latin America has created millions more refugees.) These mass migrations have been encouraged by the globalization of the media. For example, American television programs routinely promote a perception of the United States as a land of prosperity, gleaming cities, and sexually attractive people. The end result is that third-world peoples are encouraged to move to America, with whatever social dislocations that in turn causes.

The globalization of the economy has implications for national security. Until the 1960s, much of the world relied on American manufacturing to provide their consumer and industrial needs. But with the shift of production to the third world, and the rise of Industrial power in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere, the world is less dependent on American manufacturing, meaning that American economic leverage will eventually decline.

Obviously, a nation that wants to fight a major war in the modern word requires a reliable industrial base. But just as importantly, modern warfare requires a technological base. Yet the American industrial base has largely been shifted elsewhere, and the technological base is being rendered obsolete by foreign-based cybernetic advances. The American military relies heavily on high­technology components for its weapons. Many of these components are manufactured abroad. Will there be a reliable source for these components in the event future wars disrupt lines of communications across the oceans?

At the same time, the corporate power base is not all that secure. The new class of cybernetically ­oriented information specialists are now becoming the critical sector of the economy. Their political mobilization will become the key to 21st century political power. And, as will be seen, the United States government has taken some less -than-intelligent steps in this matter.

The possibilities of the computerized workplace mean that people can increasingly determine their own working conditions. This transition would be one of the greatest social revolutions in the history of the world. Hand-inhand would also come political revolution and, of course, conflict because those who benefit from the older hierarchical systems resist any change to them.

Cybernetic Security: The New Maginot Line

Modern government and industry realize the importance of the computer (and cybernetics in general) to their well-being, They also recognize the threats to them. [See module on "Tools of the Trade."] A number of techniques have been developed with which to provide security against attempts by "hackers" to penetrate computer systems. These techniques include:

• Physical security (controlling access to buildings and sensitive areas)
• Personnel security (subjecting computer operators to extensive background checks and compartmentalizing high security jobs)
• Hardware security (preventing unauthorized persons from using terminals or pilfering equipment)
• Software security (ensuring that only authorized persons can use programs)

Security procedures have a long and generally successful career - in the non-cybernetic world. But one is reminded of the Duke of Wellington's commentary about the French performance at Waterloo: "They carne at us the same old way, and we defeated them the same old way." The problem with these security methods is that they are suited to a world that secures items physically.

Electronic data cannot be confined to a single secure site. Data must be allowed to flow worldwide to be effective. By placing excessive controls on cybernetic operations, the employing agency effectively isolates itself, severing its own nervous system. The fact is that a hacker can penetrate a remote system purely via phone lines. Normal physical security procedures give a false sense of security. Given the importance of the types of data that are stored electronically - everything from tax and criminal records to credit ratings and bank accounts - the potential for disaster is overwhelmingly great.

Cybernetic security requires an entirely new There must be the realization that, in ways cyberspace by its very nature will be chaotic and that attempts to limit it are bound to either fail or Oust as likely) to destroy the very effectiveness of the system.

Although this article is not the place for a discussion of it, it is becoming rapidly apparent that chaos theory provides a far more appropriate methodology for describe what is happening today than conventional analysis. A parallel. is the increasing rise of "chaos" in military and political affairs since the end of the Cold War, reflected in the rise of national rivalries in place of rigid ideological conflicts and the increasing effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. The failure of US-led forces to suppress guerrillas in Somalia or Colombia in recent years testifies to this increase in effectiveness (as does the failure of the Soviets to deal with the Afghan resistance in the 1980s, and NATO's inability to deal with the situation in the former Yugoslavia).

The former Soviet Union failed to maintain itself in the face of the rise of modern means of communications. The photocopy machine, the fax, and the telephone were ultimately all revolutionary weapons because they allowed independent communications (and, one should note, in a country where the state made a considerable attempt to control these devices!). Given the widescale presence of cybernetic communications equipment in the United States, any attempt of the government to suppress or even regulate alternative communications is inevitably doomed to failure. Because there is no centralized system of control or switching (as is true of telephone systems and network radio and television), it becomes impossible to strike against any insurgent "infrastructure." Revolution depends upon secure communications, and cybernetics provide that security.

In many ways the current situation may be compared to the idea behind the Maginot Line. The Maginot Line was the belt of fortifications the French built during the 1930s along its border with Germany. The idea was to provide a secure defense against any future German attack. But the Maginot Line was not merely a stronghold of concrete emplacements and guns. It was a mentality, a way of looking at the world. The French saw warfare in past-oriented terms of rigid linear defense. The Germans, by contrast, looked to the future. They realized that warfare was going to be a matter of mobility and individual initiative. They trained their officers to think and act independently; indeed, there was even a word for this concept, auftragstaktik. The end result was the collapse of France in 1940 and the opening of the blitzkrieg era of warfare. This trend has accelerated in the decades following the Second World War. Modern warfare, and with it, modern social organization, can no longer be bounded by rigid linear thinking.

Yet this lesson does not seem to be fully comprehended by America's elites. A disturbing trend is for government agencies to alienate large sectors of the cybernetic community by heavyhanded security procedures. Back in GameFix #2 I described the illegal federal raid against Steve Jackson Games of Austin Texas. The end result was the foundation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Just as importantly, government's effort created an adversarial relation in which many in the cybernetic community see the government as "the enemy. " A case in point is the US government's prosecution of Phil Zimmerman, inventor of PGP.

Galileo Again?

In the Spring of 1991, a bill was proposed in the United States (S.B. 266) that contained a provision mandating that the providers and manufacturers of electronic communications services and equipment would have to ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain-text contents of voice, data, and other communications. This idea caused a wave of shock across cybernetic communications channels. The new bill was seen as a threat to freedom of speech and privacy, as well a being a sure-fire formula for destroying the growing American cryptographic industry. The concern was that no one would want to buy cryptographic programs that had a built-in back door. It would have a special impact on Phil Zimmermann.

Phil Zimmermann was a computer consultant who had developed a personal computer version of public-key encryption. This software was virtually unbreakable. He called it "PGP"for "pretty good privacy."

In response to the announcement of S.B. 266, Kelly Goen, one of Zimmermann's associates, decided to take action. His plan was simple give PGP to the world. He uploaded copies of PGP to various computer bulletin boards around the United States. This move effictively negated any possible future attempts by the government to insert a back door into PGP inasmuch as millions of people would now have access to the original. Needless to say, this development did not make the United States government very happy.

The government ended up prosecuting Zimmermann for illegal trafficking in munitions because, technically, cryptography is considered a munition under US Code. The case is complex, based on the assumption that, because PGP was uploaded onto bulletin boards that foreign nationals may access, Zimmermann was is in violation of US munitions export laws! The Zimmermann case is currently pending, but it has served as a rallying point for many cybernetics operators who are opposed to current US cybernetics policies.

Similarly, the US Congress is currently debating bills that would give the government increasing power to regulate - and censor -materials on the Internet. Obviously, the government understands the power that an unfettered communications system would mean, especially when those communications can be used in conjunction with encryption. The major media corporations also understand this power.

The end result of the prosecution of Phil Zimmermann, the Clipper Chip controversy, and the Communications Decency Act (which would provide censorship for the Internet) is that the US government has been alienating the very people on whom the future of its technological progress depends. Rather than encouraging the development of cybernetic advances, the American government has, in effect, undermined it. New military ideas come only from intellectual ferment. What has happened is that by alienating millions of cybernetically-oriented citizens, the US government has created the groundwork for the very insurgent situation it hoped to avoid.

It is fairly obvious that, whatever the wishes of the state, or even the majority of people, it is impossible in the modern world for a state to stop the march of scientific/technological progress. A nation that did so would sentence itself to eventual doom, for it would be unable to compete economically or militarily in the modern world. It would lose its place in the modern world and eventually come to be dominated. We can look at these cases as analogous to the persecution of Galileo and other proponents of thee scientific revolution at the opening of the modern era. In the long term, history vindicated the innovators: the question is, are modern states going to repeat the errors of their predecessors?

The Future?

Other technological developments make the apparent idiocy of government's attempting to control technology all the more evident. Through nanotechnology, it will be possible for individual humans to micro-engineer their own bodies - and, beyond that, their minds. Once the individual has complete control of its own life, the social structures that have arisen over the past several millennia to control individuals will be rendered obsolete. And irrelevant.

More Cybernaut The New Frontier

What is a Cybernaut, Anyway?
Some Cybernaut Technology
Some Cybernaut Organizations
Tools of the of Trade
The Zimmerman Case
Discovery of a New Frontier
Game Rules