TALKING POLITICS

We talk to Shoshana Zuboff about The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, her game-changing account of what's gone wrong with the world of big tech and how to fix it. What is surveillance power and why is it destroying the things we value? How have we allowed this to happen? Where will the resistance come from? Plus we ask whether the real problem here is technology or capitalism itself. With John Naughton. Talking Points: In her new book Zuboff writes, “"surveillance capitalists know too much to qualify for freedom.” - What is the relationship between knowledge, freedom, and capitalism? - The neoliberal argument is that markets must be free because they are so complex that they are ineffable. No one knew anything, so everyone must be free. - Today, the major tech companies are claiming the same thing. But in fact, these same arguments are the opposite of what Hayek and Smith intended because surveillance capitalists make it their business—literally—to know everything. - Surveillance capitalism is a radical asymmetry of knowledge, and this knowledge creates a new and unique form of power. Surveillance capitalists have succeeded in part because of an ideology of inevitablism. Blame the networks, this is just how they are. - This is insidious because it threatens free will and human autonomy. - Democratic society is impossible without the notion that individuals have the capacity to choose their actions and shape the future. What can be done? - Lifting the veil: naming what’s going on allows us to deem it intolerable. We need a sea change in public opinion. - Building better systems: people do not want to be trapped in the current environment. There is space for someone to forge an alternative path to the digital future. - Collective Action: Power is not just exerted in the economic domain—it’s everywhere all the time. How do we come together to tame this kind of capitalism? Will this be enough? The excesses of raw capitalism during the Gilded Age were tempered by the World Wars. The historical conditions today are different. Democracy was in trouble before Facebook. - Thomas Paine says that every generation needs to fight for democratic values. These principles are never won for all time. In surveillance capitalism, we are not the customers or the employees. This is rogue capitalism that is cut loose from society. - Are predictions of human behavior legitimate products that should be sold in the marketplace? Should we have markets that trade in human futures? - Information technology always produces more information. Who gets to know, who decides who knows, and who decides who decides who knows? The Chinese state sees in surveillance capitalism the means to its own political ends. - The conflation of authoritarian power and instrumentarian power is the ultimate nightmare—and this is a realistic prospect for the future of humanity. - A happy ending is not inevitable, nor is it impossible. Mentioned in this episode: - Shoshana Zuboff’s new book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism - Eric Schmidt in 2009 on privacy - Democracy Hacked: David talks to Alan Rusbridger and Martin Moore about fake news, democracy, and the changing information environment - Toronto, Google, and resistance to the “smart city” Further Learning: - John on Shoshana’s book for The Observer - The Talking Politics guide to… Machine Learning with Jennifer Cobbe - The Talking Politics guide to… Facebook with John Naughton And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week David talks to John Lanchester about his new novel depicting Britain after a climate catastrophe and encircled by a vast wall that must be defended at all costs. Where does this nightmarish vision come from? How closely does it track what we know about climate change? And what does it tell us about our political choices now and in the future? Plus we discuss the relationship between climate and capitalism. https://amzn.to/2Sx7PAD  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

An extra episode as David and Helen try to work out where we've got to with Brexit after this week's votes in the Commons. Can Tory unity hold? Can EU unity hold? Something's got to give - but what?  And when? Talking Points: Is there a contradiction in offering to renegotiate the backstop? - If a no deal means a hard border and economic chaos, then maybe there is a good argument for reopening the backstop? - If you’re sitting in Dublin right now, you might be nervous because the chance that Britain leaves without a deal seems higher than it was. - Would the other EU states abandon Ireland? The big loser of the week was the second referendum. There does not seem to be stomach in parliament for stopping Brexit. - The massive tactical problem that May now faces is that Feb. 14 is way too soon - An extension of Article 50? For what purpose? 60% of the UK electorate sees extending Article 50 as stopping Brexit. - Does this mean that events are leading toward either a deal or no deal Brexit? - A general election seems like the logical way out. - But both Labour and the Tories would have a lot of problems in a general election. There could be some common group between the ERG position and the EU position if all parties could be 100% confident that the backstop would not materialize. - But it is also possible that we are totally trapped. Mentioned in this Episode: - New numbers on the EU economy Further Learning: - The FT on Germany’s current position - Our recap of Theresa May’s crushing Commons defeat - Can May get her deal over the line? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most influential lectures ever given on politics: Max Weber's 'Politics as a Vocation', first delivered in Munich on 28 January 1919. David and Helen talk with Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, about some of its lessons for the age of Brexit. Where have all the good leaders gone? Is the party system to blame? Are we suffering from an excess of conviction or a lack of conviction? And who will be responsible if we see a return to violence? Recorded before a live audience at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. Talking Points: The British two-party system, which Weber admired, was intended to organize political divisions; however the plebiscitary politics of the Brexit referendum introduced another set of divisions. - Divisions over Brexit cut across the parties. - This demonstrates the danger of mixing different types of politics. Another problem is that the UK is a multinational state. Is the current failure of leadership about the leaders we have chosen or the dilemmas they face? - Right now, there doesn’t seem to be an opposition that is ready to take over. Does this suggest the need for a new party, or parties? - In many ways, Tony Blair represented Weber’s ideal of charismatic leadership. But he also discredited that model for many people. - Regardless of what you think of May or Corbyn, it’s clear that neither of them is in it for the money. - May and Corbyn are a generational step back; right now, there aren’t any new leaders emerging. When Weber wrote his lecture, the stakes of politics were remarkably high—there was a real risk of civil war. - In a world in which large-scale violence is unlikely, is charismatic leadership still the answer? Mentioned in this episode: - Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation” - Jonathan Powell’s essay in the New Statesman, “The Rise and Fall of Britain’s Political Class” Further Learning: - Jonathan Powell on the backstop - David on how divisions between the old and the young are threatening democracy. - The Talking Politics guide to… the 1970s, in which Helen explains the turbulent decade - Who is Jeremy Corbyn? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

With the US government still shut, we compare this standoff to shutdowns of the past and try to work out what happens next. What is Trump's game? Can the two parties hold together? And why aren't the workers taking to the streets? Plus we weigh up where things stand with the Mueller investigation, the race for the Democratic nomination and Trump's shifting policy on Syria. It's all connected! With Helen Thompson and Gary Gerstle.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A special extra episode for this week with Adam Tooze, author of Crashed and one of our most popular previous guests. He takes us through the wider political and economic context for Britain's Brexit crisis, from Italy to France to Germany, and beyond to China and the US.  Plus he explains why Brexit is one of the great calamities of his lifetime.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

After the crushing defeat for Theresa May's deal in the Commons, we try to work out where we go from here. How and when can Article 50 be extended? What would it mean for parliament to take control of the process? Do we need another general election? Can this government survive? It's all connected and we search for the path through the maze. With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton and Kenneth Armstrong.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Martin Rees about how we should evaluate the greatest threats facing the human species in the twenty-first century. Does the biggest danger come from bio-terror or bio-error, climate change, nuclear war or AI? And what prospects does space travel provide for a post-human future? Talking Points: Existential risk is risk that cascades globally and is a severe setback to civilization. We are now so interconnected and so empowered as a species that humans could be responsible for this kind of destruction. - There are natural existential risks too, such as asteroids. But what is concerning about the present moment is that humans have the ability to affect the entire biosphere. - This is a story about technology, but it’s also about global population growth and the depletion of resources. There are four categories of existential risk: climate change, bioterror/bioerror, nuclear weapons, and AI/new technology. - Climate Change has a long tail, meaning that the risk of total catastrophe is non-negligible. - Bioterror/bio-error is becoming more of a risk as technology advances. It’s hard to predict the consequences of the misuse of biotech. Our social order is more vulnerable than it used to be. Overwhelmed hospitals could lead to a societal breakdown. - Machine learning has not yet reached the level of existential risk. Real stupidity, not artificial intelligence, will remain our chief concern in the coming decades. Still, AI could make certain kinds of cyber-attacks much worse. - The nuclear risk has changed since the Cold War. Today there is a greater risk that some nukes go off in a particular region, although global catastrophe is less likely. These threats are human-made. Solving them is also our responsibility. - We can’t all move to Mars. Earth problems have to be dealt with here. - There are downsides to tech, but we will also need it. Martin describes himself as a technical optimist, but a political pessimist. Mentioned in this episode: - Martin Weitzman on long tail risks and climate change - The Stern Review on climate change, 10 years on - A review of Jared Diamond’s Collapse. Further Learning: - Martin’s new book, On the Future: Prospects for Humanity - The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge - The Talking Politics Guide to Nuclear Weapons - Who wants to colonize Mars? And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Helen Thompson about the economic order that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War.  What was agreed at Bretton Woods, how did it work, why did it eventually fail, and can any of it be revived? Talking Points: The Bretton Woods system: - Established a system of fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency (other currencies were pegged to the dollar, and the dollar was pegged to gold) - Created the IMF and the World Bank - Established capital controls On the surface, Bretton Woods is a success story. - The following three decades were a period of economic growth and relative stability. - But there are other parts of that story too, such as low oil prices. - The system had to be patched up many times from 1961 onward, in part because of the misaligned role of dollars and gold. - Bretton Woods also created a problem for U.S. presidents who had to balance domestic and international pressures on the dollar. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of the end for Bretton Woods. - Nixon didn’t like Bretton Woods because it imposed domestic constraints that were at odds with his protectionist message. - In 1971, Nixon ended dollar/gold convertibility. By 1973, it was clear that there was no longer the will to sustain Bretton Woods. The Bretton woods system was a function of American power—there’s no going back now. - A system like Bretton Woods needs an anchoring power. - China doesn’t have a currency that is convertible in the same way and the Chinese are wary of the domestic pitfalls of becoming the international currency. Further Learning:   - In the Talking Politics Guide to… the 1970s: Helen discusses the decade in which the Bretton Woods system broke down. - The panel speaks to Oliver Bullough about “Moneyland,” and how a handful of London bankers helped break Bretton Woods. - Why did the architect of Bretton Woods spy for the Soviets? - David and Helen talk to historian Adam Tooze about the global financial crisis. And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking Set your alarms… for Thursday when David talks to Martin Rees about how we should evaluate the greatest threats facing the human species in the twenty-first century.     See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Matthew Taylor about whether more deliberation could remedy some of the defects in contemporary democracy. What can deliberative democracy add to traditional forms of political representation and how might it actually work in practice? Talking Points: The key feature of deliberative democracy is the idea that in order to fully tap into citizens’ views of an issue, you need to give them the time, information, and range of opinion to make an informed choice. - The deliberative group should be a mini-public—it’s the same principle as a jury. - Deliberative democracy allows you to see the process as well as the outcome. Many citizens change their minds. - Deliberation can legitimize representative democracy and make it possible for politicians to take difficult decisions. - But there are drawbacks too: it takes a lot of time and it can lead to polarization. Deliberation leads to more long term thinking and creates a sense of shared responsibility between citizens and the government. - Some people are suspicious that deliberative democracy is simply an attempt to get progressive politics in by another route. - So much of contemporary politics is about crowds, charisma, and slogans. Deliberative democracy is slow and informed. There should have been some kind of deliberative process before Brexit. - There was a deliberative process before the Irish referendum, which made something that could have been incredibly divisive into a positive. - But it might be too late for Brexit. Politicizing deliberative democracy could undermine it. - Deliberative democracy needs to be a habit in order to work properly. Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that is attractive and uplifting. - It could be an antidote to the ugliness of contemporary politics. - Deliberation is a gateway reform: if you make it a habit, you can use deliberative methodologies to explore other kinds of democratic reforms. - The main barrier is ignorance, not hostility. Once people understand what deliberative democracy is, they tend to be interested. Mentioned in this Episode: - Cass Sunstein on polarization and deliberative democracy. - Deliberative democracy in Ulaanbaatar. - How a citizens' assembly broke Ireland’s deadlock on abortion. Further Learning: - David discusses the future of referendums with Gisela Stuart, Jenny Watson, and Alan Renwick. - Matthew gives the RSA Chief Executive’s Lecture on citizens' assemblies. And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking Set your alarms… for Sunday, when David talks to Helen about the economic order that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War. What was agreed at Bretton Woods, how did it work, why did it eventually fail, and can any of it be revived?  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Ella McPherson about whether digital communication is making it easier or harder to hold human rights abusers to account. What has been the impact of the social media revolution on reporting human rights violations and does anonymity help or hinder the pursuit of justice? Talking Points: Human rights activism is about analyzing information, processing it, and turning it into evidence. - New technologies such as smartphones and messaging services have fundamentally changed the process of information gathering. - Analysis has also changed. For example, Google Earth or new forms of modeling can help activists verify reports. - Technology has also widened the human rights project. Many groups, including Amnesty International, now outsource some forms of analysis to amateurs. This allows them to process far more information and gives concerned citizens a way to get involved. For a few years, the story about technology and human rights was mostly positive, but there are drawbacks too. - Activists had an early adopter advantage (e.g. civilian witness videos), but states are starting to catch up. - Technology makes it easier to organize, but it also makes activists more visible and trackable. - Today, many activists are limiting or opting out of digital communications. - New developments such as “deepfakes” also make it harder to verify information. States can sow doubt by flooding the zone with misinformation. Anonymity in human rights reporting is a mixed bag because it runs against our social understanding of how to produce knowledge. - Anonymously provided information may alert fact finders to a problem, but it will rarely be sufficient. - Knowing where information comes from is important in the verification process. - Unfortunately, this means that vulnerable people are more likely to be silenced. Mentioned in this Episode: - Amnesty International’s digital verification project - And their open-source investigations - The Forensic Architecture agency at Goldsmiths, University of London Further Reading: - “Anatomy of a Killing:” the BBC uses open-source information including Google Earth to identify and verify a horrifying video circulating on social media - What are “deepfakes” and can we still trust what we see? - On blockchain and deepfakes - What happens when war crimes are recorded on social media? Set your alarms… for Thursday, when David talk to Matthew Taylor about whether more deliberation could remedy some of the defects in contemporary democracy.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How did Facebook get to be so powerful and what, if anything, can we do to take some of that power back? David talks to John Naughton about the rise and possible fall of Mark Zuckerberg’s social media monolith.  Talking Points: Facebook is a data extraction company claiming to be a social network. - If the service is free, your data is the product. - Advertisers, not users, are Facebook’s real customers. - How do we reconcile this reality with the fact that people value it as a public service? In some parts of the world, Facebook has become the internet. - People who wouldn’t be able to afford data charges can access the internet for free via the Facebook app. - If you are a monopoly platform for information, what kind of responsibility do you have? 2018 has been a tough year for Facebook, but is it really vulnerable? - Investigative reporting has revealed the darker side of the social network. - So far, they’ve been pretty inept at handling these scandals. - This is creating a morale problem, which could affect their ability to recruit. - But the company’s services have inserted themselves into people’s daily lives. - We don’t have the right analytical framework for analyzing how Facebook does harm. Facebook has become the corporate extension of Mark Zuckerberg’s personality. - He has absolute control, and this means that his vision dominates. - Zuckerberg appears to believe that the world would be better if everyone were on Facebook. - For Facebook, it’s all about growth. What if they embraced a more self-limiting strategy? - A massive revolt by a significant portion of people might shift the narrative and cause investor panic. - But it’s unlikely that Facebook will be out-competed. The barrier to entry has become too high. Mentioned in this Episode: - Carole Cadwalladr’s groundbreaking reporting on Cambridge Analytica - The New York Times’ investigation into how Facebook handled revelations about Russian interference in the 2016 election - How Facebook enabled a genocide in Myanmar Further Learning: - From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg, John’s book about the internet. - The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos profiles Mark Zuckerberg. - From our archive... David unpacks the Cambridge Analytica story with John and Jennifer Cobbe. - Shoshana Zuboff’s new book on the age of surveillance capitalism. - The U.S. Senate’s report on disinformation and Russian interference. And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking Set your alarms… for Sunday, when David talks to Ella McPherson about whether digital communication is making it easier or harder to hold human rights abusers to account.   See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Diane Coyle about how we measure whether the state of the economy is actually doing us any good. Why is it so hard to capture well-being in economic statistics and what impact has the digital revolution had on our quality of life? Talking Points: What does it mean when there is a disconnect between conventional economic measures and life as it is experienced? - Consider the United States: economic indicators such as GDP and unemployment statistics look good, but the social indicators are terrible. Life expectancy is falling due to an epidemic of drug overdoses and suicide. Politics are practically deranged. What are the conventional economic measures missing? - There are lots of things going on that GDP doesn’t pick up, especially in the household. - Technology is rapidly changing work patterns, and data collection hasn’t yet caught up. - Life in cities looks very different than life elsewhere. Due to forces of agglomeration, people in big cities have more access to public services. - We need better data that takes into account factors such as wealth, the state of infrastructure, geographic distribution, and human capital. - Disjunction leads to distrust. Better measurement might help build trust between experts and citizens. The 2008 Crash left deep scars, but the problems we see today go further back than that. - After deindustrialization in the 1980s and 1990s, there was no meaningful policy response to the loss of jobs. - This created a vicious cycle of unemployment, declining schools, and poor health. - With automation on the horizon, we need better policies. - We aren’t asking the right questions around automation: What kind of skills will be needed and can people acquire them? What will the adjustment costs look like? Interconnectivity is a key challenge going forward. - Societies adjust to technological changes all the time, but today, rapid changes are also interacting with trade wars and geopolitical disturbances such as Brexit. Mentioned in this Episode: - The United States is experiencing the longest sustained decline in life expectancy in a century - A brief summary of Thomas Piketty’s Capital - And check out Talking Politics in conversation with Piketty - The Bennett Institute, which is trying to collect better data on some of these issues Further Learning: - If you’re  interested in reading more of Diane’s work, check out her website. - Diane in the FT on how we can get better at measuring economic realities - And from our archives, Diane talks with David, Chris, and Helen about what’s wrong with GDP - Anand Menon on the Brexit GDP heckler (“That’s your GDP, not mine”) - The Cincinnati Enquirer’s Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the U.S. opioid epidemic And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking Set your alarms… for Thursday, when David talks to John Naughton about the rise and possible fall of Mark Zuckerberg’s social media monolith.  How did Facebook get to be so powerful and what, if anything, can we do to take some of that power back?  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David talks to Gary Gerstle about the history of the United States Constitution and its current role in American political life. Is it still fit for purpose in the twenty-first century and what could be done to change it? “American democracy is stuck, but because of the Constitution it also has a history of getting stuck.” Talking Points: The Constitution not only divided power between the federal government and the states; it also gave each level of governance a different theory of power. - The Constitution strengthened the power of the central state—this was necessary for the fledgling country to take on larger challenges. - But Americans were wary about centralized power. Their solution was the enumeration of powers: the federal government would only have those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. - Non-enumerated powers remained in the hands of the states, which have, historically, legislated far more intrusively than the federal government. The biggest changes to the Constitution are not through amendments but through interpretation and practice. - Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult. - Commentators often identify the Civil War as a constitutional inflection point. After the war, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery (13th amendment) and protect the rights of citizens (14th and 15th amendments). - But in the years that followed, the states successfully clawed back many of the powers they had been forced to relinquish. As a result, the force of the civil rights amendments was not felt until the 1960s when the Warren Court effectively imposed the Bill of Rights on the states. The 1960s saw a split between those who believed in originalism versus the living constitution. - The Democrats say that the Constitution only works in a radically changing society if you interpret it liberally, in a living sense, for every generation. - The conservatives say that the Constitution must be interpreted according to what the founding fathers intended. - The root of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans is over the proper use of federal power. Today, federal paralysis means that there is a resurgence of activity on the state level. - With a conservative court, the states could even become the vanguard of the progressive movement. - In the post-Civil War, post-Warren court era, federalism may be able to work in a way that it never could before. Further Learning: - Gary Gerstle’s fascinating book about American governance - Gary and the panel recap the 2018 U.S. midterm elections - How did the U.S. Supreme Court get so polarized? - More on the Warren Court and where it stood on the issues And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking Set your alarm clocks… next week, Diane Coyle talks to David about economic well-being. What do the statistics miss and how has the digital revolution affected our quality of life?  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week David and Helen try to make sense of everything that's going on: not just the Brexit drama, but its links to Macron's fate in France and Merkel's fate in Germany. How will history see this moment? Does Theresa May have any cards left to play? Plus David responds to some of the feedback from last week's episode about votes for children. Recorded on Weds morning before the result of the confidence vote, with a short update.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.