Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism: Paul Virilio,Simulation, and the Global Financial Crisis

Eric Wilson

Published online: 8 September 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This essay is a manifesto expounding the relevance of the critical theory of

Paul Virilio to critical criminology. I interpret the global credit crisis as a criminogenic

‘event’, explicable in terms of Virilio’s theory of speed-politics. The trans-national

space(s) of globalization are inherently criminogenic. ‘Power crime’ is the criminogenic

‘substance’ of global capitalism. Globalization—intensity, extensity, velocity, and

impact—equates with cyber-capitalism, which ensures the operational primacy of simu-

lation. Simulation, the fast moving manipulation of post-reality, causes the ‘disappearance

of the real’, which underlines the epistemological crisis that attenuates global economic

catastrophe. Simulation equates with the ‘logistics of perception’, which manifests itself

through both pure war and speed-politics. Simulation and power crime merge on the level

of the criminogenic manipulation of reality, resulting in the ‘accident’ of the global credit

crisis. Power crime is the criminogenic medium through which the periodic crises of global

capitalism will now occur.

The day when virtual reality becomes more powerful than reality will be the day of the big accident.—PaulVirilio.

Accident is statistically inescapable.—Yi-Fu Tuan.

Introduction

My paper advances three propositions: (1) That the global credit crisis constitutes a form of

‘accident’, signifying the emergence of power crime, or the ‘criminogenic’, as a systemic

property of the cyber-capitalist world-economy; (2) That this accident in global finance,

widely understood as a ‘fast moving event’, is governed by wider trends that are necessary

attributes of what is generally described as ‘globalization’; (3) That the work on the notion

of simulation by the critical theorists Jean Baudrillard and, more crucially, Paul Virilio

provide us with the conceptual tools and philosophical imaginary that we need in order to

E. Wilson (&)Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiae-mail: Wilson@law.monash.edu.au

123

Crit Crim (2012) 20:249–274DOI 10.1007/s10612-011-9139-7

re-formulate our understanding of the nature of the world-economy which now stands

revealed as a criminogenic phenomenon.

Globalisation and Simulation

‘I don’t claim to define the situation, I try to reveal tendencies.’—Paul Virilio

In this paper I adopt the (provisional) definition of globalization offered by David Held.

[A] process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial

organization of social relations and transactions—assessed in terms of their extensity,

intensity, velocity and impact—generating transcontinental or interregional flows and

networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power. (Held et al. 1999 at 15)

Historical materialists such as Robert Brenner have argued powerfully that the current

global credit crisis is merely the most recent event within the long term systemic crisis of

over-accumulation and the declining rate of profitability.1 However, what orthodox

Marxist analysis ordinarily elides is the extent to which the speed of the crisis can itself

serve as the primary indicator of the nature of the globalized economy within which the

event is embedded. Non-Marxist scholars, such as William Greider, evidence a clear

awareness of a qualitative transformation of the nature of late capitalism.

The essence of this industrial revolution, like others before it, is that commerce and

finance have leapt inventively beyond the existing order and existing consciousness

of peoples and societies. The global system of trade and production is fast con-

structing a new functional reality for most everyone’s life, a new order built upon its

own dynamics and not confined by the traditional social understandings. (Greider

1997 at 15)

Within this imaginary, global economic catastrophe is discursively equated with an even

more foundational ontological crisis; ‘The most important breakthrough, by far, was in an

obscure realm of high finance that is utterly unfamiliar to most citizens and, for that matter,

do most politicians: the decontrol of capital movement itself’ (Greider 1997 at 33).2

There is considerable evidence that within the mainstream media, the most important

shaper of public conceptions, a fundamental but indiscernible shift in the nature of late

capitalist relations has taken place, one that serves to unite a metaphysics of chaos with an

epistemology of radical uncertainty, underlying a wider but equally ineffable cultural

crisis. The popular writings of the international financial speculator George Soros is an

outstanding example of this fledging attempt at collective re-conceptualization. Soros

formally eschews the orthodox view that ‘uncertainties’ are currently ‘impeding the normal

functioning of the financial market.’ For him, ‘Misinterpretations of reality and other kinds

of misconceptions play a much bigger role in determining the course of events than

generally recognized’ (Soros 2008 at 11). Misrepresentation is not an anomaly but ‘a

causal force in history’: the ‘current financial crisis can be directly attributed to a false

1 See below.2 An ‘economistic’ ontology, with, of course, a concomitant political catastrophe; ‘The wondrous machineof global revolution [i.e., ‘globalization’] is oscillating out of control, widening the arcs of social andeconomic instabilities in its wake. The destructive pressures building up within the global system are leadingtoward an unbearable chaos that, even without a dramatic collapse will likely provoke the harsh, reactionarypolitics that can shut down the system’ Greider (1997, 316).

250 E. Wilson

123

interpretation of how financial markets function’ (Soros 2008 at 50).3 Indeed, there ‘has to

be some form of credit or leverage and some kind of misconception or misrepresentation

involved for a boom-bust process to develop’ (Soros 2008 at 78). Yet, somewhat curiously,

Soros goes on to insist with equal moral and intellectual certainty that ‘Markets will not be

fully re-assured until all hidden liabilities are fully disclosed’ (Soros 2008 at 128).4 In the

end, then, Soros ironically re-affirms the very epistemological realism (‘truth’) that has

already been put into doubt by the global dimension of a crisis that seems to have resulted

from the system-wide commodification of ‘debt’ as ‘asset’, a global loss in the ability to

distinguish between positive and negative value.5 I suggest that the site where popular

economic discourse would most greatly benefit from a direct engagement with critical

theory lies along this precise juncture: that the nature, structure, and operation of the

current global political economy renders impossible, both in ontological and epistemo-

logical terms, the recovery, or ‘re-discovery’, of the Real.

Simulation: Speed

The question of modernity and postmodernity is superseded by that of reality and

post-reality.—Paul Virilio

The complex manipulation of suspect financial instruments that appears to have caused the

crisis strongly bring to mind the critical, almost poetic, reveries of the French theorist Jean

Baudrillard on what he de-notes as ‘simulation’, the onto-epistemological transformation

of the ‘real’ into the ‘virtual’. Like a good simulationist, Baudrillard defines his key notion

in binary opposition to simulation’s Other, dissimulation.

To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have

what one hasn’t. One implies a presence, the other an absence. But the matter is more

complicated, since to simulate is not simply to feign…Thus, feigning or dissimu-

lating leaves the reality principle: the difference is always clear, it is only masked;

whereas simulation threatens the difference between ‘true’ and ‘false’, between ‘real’

and ‘imaginary’ (Baudrillard 1983 at 5).6

3 A point labored at great length by Greider. ‘The power of global finance includes an extraordinary abilityto create its own version of reality and persuade others to believe in it. When investment analysts determinethe financial outlook for a company or nation, their portraiture [sic] is based on statistical indicators, markettrends and political intelligence—an analysis clearly abstracted from the messy facts of daily life. Thefinancial data seems so concrete and logical, so consistent with orthodox principles of economics, that othersare regularly seduced by the markets self-confident assumptions. Governments, press and politicians typi-cally embrace these financial projections and amplify them into a general metaphor of economic progress’Greider (1997, 259).4 Soros’ account touches directly on the vital question over the role that trust plays in economic transac-tions. The classic discussion is Akerlof (1970).5 ‘Freed by deregulation, the banks found new business converting consumer debt into tradeable securitiesand then selling those securities to the [pension and mutual] funds (or other banks).’ Blackburn (2008, at 67;also 74). See the summary provided by Wark (1994, 200). Published in 1994, Wark’s ‘Site #4: Wall Street,New York City, Planet of Noise’ is an utterly prescient anticipation of the global financial catastrophe ofSeptember 2008. Idem, 165–247. In particular, chapter eight, ‘Crash!’, is an early Virilian analysis of thethen newly emergent cyber-capitalism. Idem, 205–247.6 For the role played by simulation in contemporary critical theory, see Cubitt (2001).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 251

123

For Baudrillard, the era of simulation is a ‘post-theological’ one, in which we have

collectively repudiated the traditional hierarchy of evaluation of the ‘true’ and ‘false’ a

relic of the lingering superstitious belief in God.

The transitions from signs which dissimulate something to signs which dissimulate

that there is nothing, marks the decisive turning point. The first implies a theology of

truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inau-

gurates an age of simulacra and simulation, in which there is no longer any God to

recognize his own, nor any last judgement to separate the true from false, the real

from its artificial resurrection, since everything is already dead and risen in advance.

(Baudrillard 1983 at 12)

The ‘highest’ value (in the Nietzschean sense) of the Baudrillarian Text lies is that it enables

the parodic inversion of classical Marxism. Like Nietzsche, Baudrillard is not concerned

with ‘truths’, but with values. Both undertake a critical, and highly subversive, form of

axiology: ‘As Nietzsche said: ‘‘Down with all hypotheses that have allowed belief in a real

world’’’ (Baudrillard 1993 at 61). From this perspective, both the Liberal and Marxist belief

in the objective ‘truth’ of the law of exchange(s) stand revealed as a ‘superstition’

(metaphysics) or, even worse, a ‘prejudice’ (morality). Baudrillard’s project is not to

construct a metaphysical counter-reality but to undertake an ironic analysis of a pata-

physical (i.e., ‘post-Real’) phenomenon, the ‘liquidation of meaning’. Baudrillard is not a

metaphysician but a radical anthropologist; all of his later writings are supremely ironic, and

intensely poetic, commentaries upon the contemporary ‘violence perpetuated against

meaning’, interrogating the current legitimacy of the Reality Principle as the master-sign of

social and cultural value by means of deliberately ironical quasi-metaphysical postulates.

Contrary to popular perceptions, therefore, the Baudrillarian text is a critical excavation

not of ‘reality’ but of ‘meaning’; the uncovering of the infinitely self-referential nature of

the ‘structural law of value’ lies at the very heart of his work. (Gane 1993 at x) Baudrillard

has even worked out a (primitive) historical chronology of the successive domains of

simulation, each era governed by its own form of simulacra, a regime of value controlled

by a temporally specific circulation/exchange system of signs. These historically succes-

sive ‘orders of the sign’ are, respectively

1. First-order simulacra = the ‘Baroque’’ (16th–18th centuries; Baudrillard 1993 at

55–57)

2. Second-order simulacra = the ‘Industrial’ (19th–20th centuries; the use-value vs.

exchange-value of classical Marxism, or the law of equivalent value/commodity form-

exchange; Baudrillard 1993 at 55–57)

3. Third-order simulacra = The ‘Code’ (late twentieth Century; the subsumption of the

illusory binary opposition between use- and exchange-value; Baudrillard 1993 at 57–61)

For Baudrillard, our current age of the sign-system/simulacra of the code is signified by ‘a

neo-capitalist cybernetic order’. (Baudrillard 1993 at 57–61) This seminal notion of a

cybernetic form of capitalism, or, more pithily, cyber-capitalism, is equally central to the

work of Baudrillard’s contemporary Paul Virilio, whose treatment of simulation, I would

like to suggest, is actually more germane to my efforts to develop a criminological model

of the global credit crisis.7

7 In this paper I will be focusing on Virilio’s earlier writings where he develops the seminal notions ofspeed-politics and pure war. In my opinion, these are the Virilian concepts of the most direct relevance tocritical criminology. Virilio’s later work on phenomenology, while of great interest to me, are not of the

252 E. Wilson

123

For Virilio, and unlike Baudrillard with whom he is frequently and somewhat mis-

leadingly linked, the central feature of cyber-capitalism is not the mimetic replacement of

reality with the virtual but, in a sort of ontological practical joke, the ‘mis-taking’ of the

model for the reality.8 Like Baudrillard, Virilio advances a radically circulationist notion of

power; however, for him, while simulation equals ‘exchange’ it does not equal ‘substi-

tution’. ‘We face a duplication of reality. The virtual and the ‘‘real’’ reality double the

relationship to the real, something that, to the best of my knowledge, results in clear

pathological consequences’ (Virilio 1995a). In Virilio’s own words, as against

the opinion of Baudrillard, I have to say that reality never vanishes. It constantly

changes. Reality is the outcome of a pre-determined epoch, science or technique.

Reality must be re-invented, always. To me, it is not the simulation of reality that

makes the difference, it is the replacement of a pre-determined reality by another pre-

determined reality. I proceed from the antagonism between real and virtual reality,

and I notice that both will shortly constitute one single reality…(Virilio 1995a)

Reality is not eliminated; however, neither is it merely being mis-perceived. Rather, the

phenomenological conduits of reality/perception have themselves been fundamentally

altered through both new social relations and new technologies.9 This point has been

forcefully made by Mike Gane in his authoritative studies of Baudrillard.

What separates Baudrillard and Virilio…[is] essentially a dispute about the theory of

the real as a referant for simulation, and particularly the social as referant …Virilio’s

‘simulations’ are representations of the real world, representations which are

substituted for one another as technology develops. Baudrillard’s conception of these

relations is more complex: the real is not a brute given, but a historically and socially

evolved form of appropriation of the world (and replaces other forms through their

constant and systematic destruction). For Baudrillard then, representation ‘stems

from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and the real’ whereas simulation,

‘on the contrary, stems…from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign

as inversion…of every reference.’ In this new situation, ‘there is no longer a Last

Judgement to separate the false from the true’ (Gane 2000 at 95).

Footnote 7 continuedgreatest importance here. However, I hope to visit the applicability of neo-phenomenology to criticalcriminology at a later time.8 ‘We lose, in simulation, the grounds of our metaphysical certainty concerning the difference between thereal and the abstraction, the real and the representation, the real and knowledge about it. The difference isthe crucial thing that we have lost, since without that difference that separates the two poles of any of thesesystems of truth, picturing or science, we cannot distinguish one from the other. This is the profoundimplication of the indifference of simulation, its assimilation of all separations into an indefinite cloud ofself-generating models’ Cubitt (2001, 50).9 See Wark on this point: ‘The ‘‘economic real’’ is in some quite fundamental ways, elusive, ineffable,unknowable. To assume that there is a ‘‘true’’ price or set of prices at which buyers and sellers will match upperfectly and the market will clear, assumes away everything dynamic and changing in the market. Itassumes away time itself. To assume that there is a knowable correspondence between prices and the valueof the goods and services they represent assumes that one has access to a knowledge of the movements ofthe economy which is independent of the institutions and discourses that make it manifest by representingit…The vector [of finance capitalism] feeds information into the market, but the ‘‘efficiency’’ of the market’sresponse depends on being able to interpret that information in an appropriate way’ Wark (1994 176 and185; see also, 181–182).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 253

123

In this sense, Virilio’s notion of simulation-as-representation is more appropriate to the

global credit crisis which is based upon the inability to maintain the dichotomy between

the false and the true. Strictly speaking, in Baudrillard’s view the global credit crisis should

never have happened, as it signifies the retention of an almost ‘superstitious’ belief in the

existence of true value; the collapse of global markets as the occurrence of the apocalyptic

Last Judgement that Baudrillard precludes as an historical possibility. Employing the

terminology of theoretical physics as a source of metaphor, Virilio, contra Baudrillard,

holds that ‘In the past, reality was a matter of mass; then it became mass ? force. Today,

reality is the outcome of mass ? force ? information. Matter has now become three

dimensional. This is a clear break’ (Virilio 1995a).

Virilio’s penchant (often criticized) for the scientific imaginary leads him to formulate

his central critical notion, one that effectively folds simulation/simulacra into a much wider

framework of critical re-presentation: that of speed. I would argue that Virilio’s notion of

speed—or, more precisely, of speed-politics—is a crucial innovation for two reasons. The

first reason is that the concept permits us to advance beyond the neo-Marxist impasse that

refuses to allow for any re-conceptualization of capitalism in a non-dialectical manner. On

the one hand, speed would appear to serve as an updating of Marx’s classic account of

space/time compression that figures so largely in innovative contemporary Marxist

scholarship, such as David Harvey’s seminal The Limits to Capital. For Harvey

Marx depicts the consequent impulse to revolutionize transport relations in very

general terms. Capital, he writes, must ‘strive to tear down every spatial barrier to

…exchange, and conquer the whole earth for its market,’ it must ‘annihilate this

space with time’ in order to reduce the turnover time of capital to ‘the twinkling of an

eye’. (Harvey 1999 at 377)

While Marx’s ‘annihilation of space with time’ is materialist, Virilio’s notion of speed as

effecting a ‘disappearance’ of reality/truth is phenomenological, annihilation correspond-

ing to a condition that is as much existential as it is historical.10 I understand Virilian speed

as a non-dialectical expression of space/time compression in which the measurable rate, or

velocity, of transaction/exchange is itself the primary mode of production and not a merely

derivative aspect of production; as Mckenzie Wark perceptively points out, Marx’s entire

account of ‘the annihilation of space by time’ wholly fails to take into account ‘the

separation of communication from transport, or the development of two distinct velocitiesof movement’ (Wark 1994 at 221). Conceived in phenomenological terms, speed directly

correlates with globalization theory’s notion of the critical variable of ‘real time

communication’, defined by Held as ‘the manner in which globalization appears to shrink

geographical time and distance; in a world of instantaneous communication, distance and

time no longer seem to be a major constraint on patterns of social organization or

interaction’ (Held et al. 1999 at 15 fn. 2).11

10 A notion that Greider intuitively grasps in a non-theoretical manner. ‘The world, one could say, was nowdivided by three different planes of consciousness in terms of how people thought about time. The globalfinancial market and its electronic participants traded continuously around the clock and no longer paused torecognize day or night. Most people in modern society measured time in segments of hours and days, weeksor months. But the primitive [sic] among us, still existing in many places, continued to think and functionaccording to the ancient cycles of seasons’ Greider (1997, 349).11 In Wark’s own account, the ‘vector’ of high speed Finance Capitalism ‘responded enthusiastically toimmaterial [information] technology, making one suspect a close affinity between the abstract social forcethat is money and the principles of the new technologies…Now, the vector and capital are complicit in this,but the vector and capital are not identical. Capital drives the vector further and harder, forcing its

254 E. Wilson

123

The second reason should, by now, be obvious: Virilio’s notion of speed allows us to

ground theory in a far more direct manner in the material contours of contemporary

capitalism. In my working definition of globalization, taken from Held, speed equates with

velocity, which is one of the four cardinal features of globalized political economy.

Velocity as the ‘growing extensity and intensity of global interconnectedness may also

imply a speeding up of global interactions and processes as the development of worldwide

systems of transport and communication increase the potential velocity of the global

diffusion of ideas, goods, information, capital and people’ (Held et al. 1999 at 15). As I

will now show, Virilian speed-politics is essential to the most fundamental operations of

cyber-capitalism.12

Pure War and the Logistics of Perception

I don’t believe in explanations. I believe in suggestions, in the obvious quality of the

implicit.—Paul Virilio

Progressive scholars have regularly pointed to the long term stagnation of the world

economy from 1973 onwards. (Brenner 2002 7–47, 268 and 285–286)13 Contemporary

capitalism, or what I de-note as cyber-capitalism, is inherently unstable; the systemic crisis

of profitability can be categorized in two ways, each one corresponding to the operation of

cyber-capitalism in a different zone of territorial space. Within inter-national space, the

crisis is one of capital over-accumulation, as described by Giovanni Arrighi.

Over-accumulation crises occur because there is such an over-abundance of capital

seeking investment in established channels of trade and production that competition

among its possessors enables real wages to rise in step with, or even faster than,

increases in labour productivity. Over-production crises, in contrast, occur because

the possessors of capital are so successful in shifting competitive pressures onto

labour that real wages fail to keep up with increases in labour productivity, thereby

preventing aggregate demand from expanding in step with aggregate supply. (Arrighi

2007, 81–82)

Footnote 11 continuedtechnologies to innovate, but at the same time it tries to commodify the fruits of this development. Thevector may have other properties, values that escape the restriction of its abstract potential to the commodityform…the vector and capital are not the same thing…and the vector is not always a functional tool forcapital’ Wark (1994, 168, 171 and 222). For a similar themed account, see Sassen (2006, chapter seven),‘Digital Networks, State Authority, and Politics’, 323–376. Once established, ‘expanded decentralizationand simultaneous integration enabled by global digital networks produce threshold effects. Today’s globalelectronic capital market can be distinguished from earlier forms of international financial markets due tosome of the technical properties of the new [information and communication technologies], notably theorders of magnitude that can be achieved through decentralized simultaneous access and interconnectivityand through the softwaring of increasingly complex instruments.’ Idem, 376. Contrast Wark and Sassen withBrenner’s tepid account of information technology which reduces the whole of digitalization to yet one moreopportunity for over-investment and financial speculation. Brenner (2002, 223–229). As is typical for a neo-Marxist, Brenner is unable to conceive of technology apart from the commodity form.12 For much of what follows, see Wilson (2009b).13 For the flattening of the profitability of the world-economy, see Brenner (2006, xxi, xxii, 1–9, 101). Forthe absolute decline in real wages, see idem, xxviii, 2–3, 193, 201, 208–211.

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 255

123

Within intra-national space, the crisis is experienced as one of systemic over-production;

the standard recent account is provided by Robert Brenner; ‘A lasting decline in the rate of

profit in the international manufacturing sector, caused by the persistence of over-capacity

and over-production, has been, and continues to be, fundamentally responsible for reduced

profitability and slow growth on a system-wide scale over the long term’ (Brenner 2002 at

285). In fact, both aspects of the crisis of capitalism are obverse phenomena, over-

accumulation on a global scale exercising downward pressure(s) on domestic earnings and

consumption.14 On a deeper structural level, the interminable crisis of profit has led to two

concomitant events of fundamental importance: (1) the net shift within developed

economies away from industry and towards financial services, most importantly

international banking15; and (2) the radical de-regulation of these same financial sectors.

The moves towards finance capitalism and de-regulation were paralleled, in turn, by the

increase in the centrality of speed and simulation to the operations of the world economy,

one that is increasingly dominated by both the technology and the order of signs/simulacra

of the cybernetic. I will discuss the centrality of speed and simulation to the ‘deep

structure’ of the global credit crisis later in this paper.16 For the present, I want to examine

the ways in which the fast-moving world economy directly corresponds to Virilio’s notion

of speed-politics and its particular manifestation of what he de-notes as pure war.

For Virilio, both politics and economics are understood as manifestations of a single

geo-strategic phenomenon that is governed by variables of speed, not only in terms of

conventional tactical considerations of military force but also in the practice of the

domestic politics of the technologically developed state. Speed reduces the being of the

state to the panoptical effect of an unlimited transparency that is ultimately self-con-

suming, what Virilio calls ‘the aesthetics of disappearance’; ‘The state’s only original

existence is as a visual hallucination akin to dreaming’ (Virilio 1989, 33). Politics ‘dis-appears into aesthetics’ precisely through its inability to successfully uphold the ‘reality

principle’, which is premised upon conventional representational demarcations between

the ‘real’, the ‘visual’, and the ‘virtual’. (Virilio 1991a) Virilio identifies this ontological

and political ‘loss of reality’ with the kinematic, which assumes two forms. ‘Kinematic

optics’, or ‘cinematic motion’, effectively ‘dissolves’ substance through the acceleration of

perception; time supplants space which ‘deletes’ Being.17 ‘Kinematic acceleration’ is

realized through the ‘dismemberment’ of space/time into isolated ‘frames’, or editorial

‘cuts’. In both instances of the kinematic the virtual re-presentation of reality is now

governed by alterations in the rate, or speed, of perception: ‘It is reality [that] we have to

14 This forms the essence of Arrighi’s critique of Brenner’s orthodox neo-Marxist account of the creditcrisis: ‘Despite Brenner’s characterization of the late twentieth-century long downturn as a situation of over-production, what he actually describes is a variant of the kind of over-accumulation of capital that, inSmith’s theory of economic development, drives down the rate of profit and brings economic expansion toan end’ Arrighi (2007, 165–166).15 This transition must not be simplistically mistaken as a movement away from the ‘true’ and towards the‘false’. As Baudrillard has argued, industrial value, which broadly corresponds to a form of use-value, isitself a form of simulacra; ‘Up to this point, we have considered production and labour as potential, as forceand historical process, as a generic activity: an energetic-economic myth proper to modernity. We must askourselves whether production is not rather an intervention, a particular phase, in the order of signs—whether it is basically only one episode in the line of simulacra, that episode of producing an infinite seriesof potentially identical beings (object-signs) by means of technics’ Baudrillard (1993, 55).16 See below.17 To ‘save phenomena is to save their speed of apperception’ Virilio (1999, 45). Cubitt rightly places thecinematic—which connotes simulation—at the center of Virilio’s oeuvre; idem, 54–64, passim. First andforemost, Virilio is a ‘simulationist’; speed is the medium of simulation.

256 E. Wilson

123

measure in a cinematic way’.18 The final outcome is a total ‘virtualizing’ of reality arising

from ‘the unprecedented limits imposed on subjective perception by the instrumental

splitting of modes of perception and representation’ (Virilio 1994 at 49).

This optical/ontological collapse of politics into speed underlines the key Virilian

notion of pure war (Virilio and Lotringer 1997) a military metaphor that signifies the

centrality of the panoptical to the contemporary mode of combat. ‘The primacy of speed is

simultaneously the primacy of the military’ (Virilio and Lotringer 1997 at 51); pure war is

the master-sign of a (post-) modern world-system that is governed by absolute speed,

signifying the total reversibility between the political, the military, and the economic.

Politics disappears into a tripartite ‘logistics of perception’: military, tele-cinematic, and

techno-scientific (Virilio 1999).

In geo-strategic terms, pure war is derived from the historical shift in military

thought from defence to offence: ‘The very long period of the supremacy of defenceover offence that marked the history of fortification…is superseded today by the era

of the supremacy of the absolute speed of weapons of interdiction on the field of

battle over the movement of the relative speeds of mechanized forces’ (Virilio 2005b

at 2).

Accordingly, pure war is ‘an optical, or electrico-optical confrontation; its likely slogan,

‘‘winning is keeping the target in constant sight’’’ (Virilio 1989 at 2)19.

At first, the battlefield was local, then it became worldwide and finally became

global, which means satellized with the invention of video and of the spy satellites of

observation of the battlefield. From now on, the battlefield is a global one. It is not

worldwide any more in the sense of the First or Second World War. It is global in the

sense of the planet, the geo-sphere. (Der Derian 2001 at 64)20

Virilian pure war has been doctrinally expressed by the Pentagon as ‘Rapid Dominance’

(Ullman and Wade 1998) or, in the vernacular, ‘shock and awe’: in ‘crude terms [the

invader] should seize control of the environment and paralyse or so overload an

adversary’s perceptions and understanding of events so that the enemy would be incapable

of resistance’ (Klein 2007 at 147 and 333). As is readily apparent, ‘shock and awe’ directly

correlates with the onto-political kinematics of pure war.

It is a war of images and sounds, rather than objects and things, in which winning is

simply a matter of not losing sight of the opposition. The will to see all, know all, at

every moment, everywhere, the will to universalised illumination: a scientific per-

mutation on the eye of God which would forever rule out the surprise, the accident,

the irruption of the unforeseen (Virilio 1994 at 70).

18 For these technologies of ‘de-realization’, see Virilio (1989, 79–89). ‘Ours are cinematic societies. Theyare not only societies of movement, but of the acceleration of the very movement. And hence, of theshortening of distances in terms of time, but, I would also add, of the relation to reality’ Armitage (2000,27).19 See also Virili (2005b at 78). ‘Many inexperienced military observers focus their attention on thedestructiveness of new weapons. While awesome power can be delivered, sharpening the point of the spearis really secondary to locating the enemy. For decades war games have proven that it is more important toimprove the military’s sensor systems and command and control processes than it is to increase firepower.Once an adversary is located, we know how to destroy him. This philosophy has driven the research anddevelopment budget’ Alexander (2003, 41).20 See Alexander (2003 41–47).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 257

123

This simultaneous projection of speed into both external and internal political space yields

two extremely dangerous developments. The first one is that it establishes manifold

linkages between the pure war and the practical operations of hegemony within

international politics. The second one is that the logistics of perception creates the

preconditions for the extra-legal manipulation of representation by entrenched political and

military elites. Both of these developments culminate in the criminogenic transformation

of the world system.

Pure War and Hegemony: Exo- and Endo-Colonization

‘The separate states had to compete for mobile capital, which dictated to them the

conditions under which it would assist them to power.’—Max Weber

The central construct of the Virilian paradigm is that the historical meta-narrative of

Modernity is the transition from total war to pure war, signified by the atomic

‘disappearances’ of Hiroshima and Nagaski. The new political order that results following

1945 is denoted as the ‘suicidal state’, marking the subordination of the world-system to

both pure war and speed-politics. The contemporary State is ‘suicidal’ not only because it

exists within the frame of atomic annihilation, but because traditional forms of political

action and speech have been superseded by the requirements of pure war; in terms of

political economy, this means the replacement of orthodox economies with a ‘military

Keynesianism’, which supplements the pre-war welfare state. (Block 1977 at 105–108,

114–122 and 168) Following the Second World War, the New Deal doubled as the basis of

both a new national and international order, serving as the ideological framework of the

Bretton Woods Agreement that legitimated U.S. hegemony.21 The ‘outbreak’ of the Cold

War in 1947 and Truman’s move away from Roosevelt’s universalism towards a polarizing

containment ‘was not so much a negation of the original notion of creating a global welfare

state, as its transformation into a project of creating a ‘‘warfare-welfare state’’ on a world

scale, in competition with and opposition to the Soviet system of communist states’

(Arrighi 2007 at 152).22 For Virilio, as for other critical scholars, the Cold War was not a

truly international conflict, but rather the globalization of a domestic struggle: the shift

away from democratic accountability and political transparency towards the covert, or

21 On the complex ‘triangulation’ between the New Deal, Bretton Woods, and U.S. hegemony, Helleiner(1994).The centrality of ‘economic statecraft’ to international relations is ordinarily overlooked by main-stream economists and international relations scholars. For an extensive consideration of internationaleconomic policy as a continuation of ‘national geo-economic strategy’ by other means, see Hudson (2003).‘One lesson of U.S. [hegemonic] experience is that the national diplomacy, embodied in what now is calledthe Washington Consensus, is not simply an extension of business drives. It has been shaped by overridingconcerns for world power (euphemized as national security) and economic advantage as perceived byAmerican strategists quite apart from the profit motives of private investors.’ Idem, 1. For Bretton Woods asthe mechanism facilitating the transition from U.K to U.S. hegemony, see Eichengreen (1996 91–92).22 See also, Hudson (2003, 12–14). It is important to note that the US was far from the only nation to do so;the shift towards ‘suicide’ is a phenomenon that encompasses the whole of the developed world. In hismagisterial study on the post-war Japanese economic ‘miracle’, Chalmers Johnson places military Key-nesianism at the centre of Japans success. Between 1911 and 1961, ’the Japanese Economy remained on awar footing. The goal changed from military to economic victory, but the Japanese people could not haveworked harder, saved more, or innovated more ruthlessly if they had actually been engaged in a war fornational survival, as in fact they were. And just as a nation mobilised for war needs a military general staff,so a nation mobilised for economic development needs an economic general staff’ Johnson (1982, 241). Seealso idem, chapter six, 198–241, passim.

258 E. Wilson

123

parapolitical, operations of the national security state.23 The result was a new form of exo-

colonization, the systematic subordination of global society to pure war, the US utilizing its

national security state apparatus to enforce the global governance prescriptions of the

newly globalized New Deal/warfare-welfare state. According to Brenner

US multinational corporations and international banks, aimed at expanding overseas,

needed profitable outlets for their foreign direct investment. Domestically based

manufacturers, needing to increase exports, required fast-growing overseas demand

for their goods. An imperial US state, bent on ‘containing communism’ and keeping

the world safe for free enterprise [i.e., the cyber-capitalist-world-economy], sought

economic success for its allies and competitors as the foundation for the political

consolidation of the post-war capitalist order, in the face of the anaemia of domestic

ruling classes supplied by war, collaboration, and defeat. All these forces thus

depended upon the economic dynamism of Europe and Japan for the realisation of

their own goals. (Brenner 2002 at 14–15)

The rise of US hegemony prompted a parallel shift towards international financial

capitalism as a means of effectively subsidizing the global suicidal state.

US policy-makers saw the free mobility of both short and long-term investment as a

top priority, for, in their eyes, it could provide a critical prop for the macroeconomic

programme that they intended to implement…The US sought increased mobility of

capital not only to facilitate its plans for the domestic economy, but also to

strengthen domestic financial interests. (Brenner 2002 at 127–128 and Eichengreen

1996 at 98–99)

The revitalization of the capitalist world-economy, financed by the Marshall Plan and

administered by the U.S. dominated specialized agencies of the United Nations, most

importantly the World Bank (the IBRD) and the International Monetary Fund (the IMF),

culminated in the re-production of the earlier global economic crisis that caused the Great

Depression: systemic over-accumulation of capital. Within the new Bretton Woods

Agreement, however, this led to the phenomenon of what both Arrighi and Brenner

describes as ‘uneven development’; ‘Confronted with heightened international competition

(especially in trade-intensive sectors like manufacturing), higher-cost incumbent firms

responded to falling returns by diverting a growing proportion of their incoming cash flows

from investment in fixed capital and commodities to liquidity and accumulation through

financial channels’ (Arrighi 2007 at 141 and 142).24 According to Arrighi, ‘Uneven

development, under US hegemony, was a process consciously and actively encouraged

‘‘from above’’ by a globalizing US warfare-welfare state’ (Arrighi 2007 at 154). Hence, the

‘particular form that uneven development assumed after the Second World War…was

thoroughly embedded in, and shaped by, the forces of US world hegemony in the Cold

War’ (Arrighi 2007 at 151). From 1945 to 1965 the world-system was stabilized by ‘a

symbiosis, if a highly conflictual one, of leader and followers, of early and later developers,

and of hegemon and hegemonized’ (Brenner 2002 at 15). After the Second World War,

uneven development

23 For a full discussion of the nature and implications of parapolitics, see the Wilson (2009a).24 On the shift in the US economy from manufacturing to finance, see Brenner (2006, 47–50, 155, 227,267–280, 290). For developmental strategy as a forum for inter-state rivalry, see Chang (2003).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 259

123

was embedded from the beginning to end in Cold War anomalies, and was therefore

thoroughly shaped by the successes and failures of the strategies and structures

deployed by the hegemonic US warfare-welfare state. The intensification of inter-

capitalist competition and the associated crisis of profitability were important as a

sign that the long post-war boom [1945–1973] had reached its limits (Arrighi 2007 at

156).

Once this stage had been reached, there was no longer a meaningful boundary between the

politics of national and international space, each having ‘disappeared’ into the other. ‘From

the very beginning…uneven economic development did entail the relative decline of the

U.S. domestic economy. But it was also a precondition for the continued vitality of the

dominant forces [that is, finance capitalism] within the US political economy’ (Brenner

2002 at 14).25 Crucially, this response to domestic decline consisted

of a system-wide tendency, centered on the leading capitalist economy of the epoch,

towards the ‘financialization’ of processes of capital accumulation. Integral to the

transformation of inter-capitalist competition from a positive- into a negative-sum

game, this tendency has also acted as a key mechanism of the restoration of prof-

itability, at least temporarily, in the declining but still hegemonic centers of world

capitalism (Arrighi 2007 at 118). 26

The deeper structural problem, here, should be obvious; the alleged solution could only

be medium term, as the hegemon had to perform the unsustainable dual role of global

military protector and what Brenner refers to as the ‘consumer of last resort’. (Brenner

2006 at 51, 161 and 189)27 As Arrighi has pointed out, a ‘situation of this kind can hardly

be reproduced for any length of time without transforming into an outright tribute or

‘‘protection payment’’, the more than $2 billion (and counting) that the United States needs

daily to balance its current accounts with the rest of the world’ (Arrighi 2007 at 164). The

true moment of crisis came in the early 1970s, with the chronic balance-of-payments

dilemma engendered by the US led war in Indochina; the most important determinant of

the ultimate collapse of Bretton Woods ‘was neither inter-capitalist competition nor

labour-capital relations but the direct and, especially, the indirect effects of the escalation

of the Vietnam War on the US balance-of-payments’ (Arrighi 2007 at 134). The crisis of

1971–1973, the terminus of the ascending phase of US hegemony, ‘was simultaneously a

crisis of profitability and a crisis of legitimacy’ (Silver and Arrighi 2003 at 341); the

intractable difficulties created by the war in Vietnam reached their climax in the same year

as the crisis of profitability [a severe inflationary cycle], when the escalation of the war in

Vietnam failed to break

25 Peter Gowan has labored to demonstrate that the financialization of the world-economy constituted astrategic shift in U.S. hegemony away from ‘direct power’ and towards ‘structural power’ Gowan (1999,23–38). ‘The Nixon strategy in ‘‘liberating’’ international financial markets was based on the idea that doingso would liberate the American state from succumbing to its economic weaknesses and would strengthen thepolitical power of the American state.’ Idem, 23. Emphasis in the original.26 Uneven development occurs not only between economic sectors but between geographical zones. SeeAgnew (2005, 204–214), for an account of uneven development within the US, between the high-speed‘global cities’ (New York, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco) and the low-speedglobally disconnected local and regional economies. ‘What is clear is that U.S. cities are at the heart of theemerging U.S. economy. The leading industries in terms of contribution to U.S. GDP growth in the 1990 shave been those in information technology, processing, and telecommunications, on the one hand, and users[of] the products of these industries in finance, insurance, and real estate…on the other.’ Idem, 208.27 See also Hudson (2003, 24, 377 and 386).

260 E. Wilson

123

the back of Vietnamese resistance and provoked instead widespread opposition to the

war in the United States itself. The collapse of the Bretton Woods regime of fixed

exchange rates and the massive devaluation of the US dollar that ensued were as

much the result of the escalating costs of that war—including the costs of programs

aimed at stemming the tide of domestic opposition to the war—as they were the

result of US responses to the crisis of profitability…Indeed, if anything, they

worsened the decline by provoking a worldwide inflationary spiral that threatened to

destroy the whole US credit structure and worldwide networks of capital accumu-

lation on which US wealth and power had become more dependent than ever before.

(Silver and Arrighi 2003 at 344)28

The termination of the (neo-) New Deal regime of Bretton Woods by the Nixon

administration in 1973 signified the decisive de-stabilisation of the capitalist world-

economy and the rise of what Harvey has referred to as the mutually assured

destructiveness of ‘the export of devaluation’; ‘In the end [capitalism] has only one place

to go. It has to cannibalize itself…The deepening and widening of [the global economic

crises of capital over-accumulation]…transforms the cannibalistic tendencies of capitalism

into so many modes of assured destruction, to be periodically unleashed as the absolute

form of devaluation…’ (Harvey 1999 at 438).

Thanks to the globalization of pure war and the suicidal state, devaluation may be

exported not to one domain, but two: the foreign and the domestic. The export of deval-

uation into foreign space is well known and marks an almost atavistic return to neo-

colonialism; ‘At times of savage devaluation, interregional rivalries typically degenerate

into struggles over who is to bear the devaluation…each [rivalry] entails the aggressive

manipulation of some aspect of economic, financial or state power’ (Harvey 1999 at 438).

Naomi Klein’s recent indispensable text offers the standard contemporary account of this

process; the domestic implementation of neo-liberal ‘reform’ is known as ‘shock doctrine’

(Klein 2007), the expression in economic form of the military doctrine of ‘shock and awe’:

either the accidental or deliberate infliction of trauma upon the state as a means of neu-

tralizing political opposition to ‘decentralized state agendas’ (Ullman and Wade 1998 at

13). This introduction of a military technique into the space of political economy is, in turn,

an outstanding example of Virilian pure war/speed-politics at work.

By ‘shock’, we mean the ability to intimidate perhaps absolutely; to impose over-

whelming fear, terror, vulnerability and the inevitability of destruction or defeat; and

to create in the mind of the adversary impotence, panic, hopelessness, paralysis and

the psychological incentives for capitulation. Generally, this would be achieved with

great suddenness, rapidity and unexpectedness. (Ullman and Wade 1998 at 13)

28 It was essential for the U.S. to repudiate the gold standard. ‘The key to understanding today’s dollarstandard is to see that it has become a debt standard based on U.S. Treasury IOUs, not one of assets in theform of gold bullion’ Hudson (2003, 35). The ‘disappearance’ of the ‘real’ world-economy of the goldstandard into the ‘simulated’ economy of floating currencies was the unintended consequence, or ‘accident’,of U.S. hegemony. ‘The Nixon administration was determined to break out of a set of institutionalizedarrangements which limited U.S. dominance in international monetary policies in order to establish a newregime which would give it monocratic power over international monetary affairs. U.S. capital was indeedbeing challenged by its capitalist rivals in product markets at the time. The break-up of the Bretton Woodssystem was part of a strategy for restoring the dominance of U.S. capitals through turning the internationalmonetary system into a dollar-standard regime’ Gowan (1999, 19).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 261

123

As Virilio would lead us to expect, the trauma of the impact of the neo-liberal agenda is

strictly equivalent to the speed of its implementation.29 Beginning in the late 1970s, the

IMF oversaw the transference of the political control of the national economic policies of

its member states from the federal ministries of finance to those of the central banks.30 This

raised traditional international economic competition to a new threshold, as globalized

neo-liberalism and free trade worked to re-subordinate the developing economic

peripheries to the developed core zone (Stiglitz 2002 at 13–16, 84, 92, 99 and 101).31

The implementation of exo-colonization via economic liberalization reached its apogee in

the East Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, as Brenner makes clear.

The IMF was primarily concerned, as it had been during the Latin American debt

crisis, to see that US, European and Japanese banks would be repaid in full. Acting as

an instrument of US foreign economic policy, it also sought to exploit this opening to

compel the region’s economies to liberalise their functioning and open themselves up

to foreign penetrations. As a condition for the advance of bridge finance to these

economies, it therefore called, in Hoover-like fashion, for the tightening of credit and

the imposition of fiscal austerity, thereby radically exacerbating the domestic eco-

nomic and debt crisis, and inviting depression. As part of the same package, which

can only be called imperialist, it extracted the agreement from local authorities, most

dramatically in Korea, to adopt wide-raging plans for the reorganisation of their

economies along Anglo-Saxon lines with the goal of easing the entry of foreign

capital (Brenner 2002 at 164).

What is not so clear, however, is the manner in which the export of cannibalistic

devaluation has penetrated the domestic sphere. In perfect Virilian fashion, the operations

of exo-colonization within international space and time are perfectly mirrored by the

operations of endo-colonization within what was traditionally understood to constitute

‘internal’ political space and time. What links both exo- and endo-colonization is the

strategic centrality of concentrated financial capitalism; that is, a network of economic

29 As Klein ably shows, Chile under Pinochet is a classic example of this phenomenon: ‘For the [neo-liberal] experiment to work, Pinochet had to strip [neo-Keynsian] distortions away—more cuts, moreprivatization, more speed’ Klein (2007, 80).30 Throughout his text, Stiglitz naively laments the ‘politicization’ of IMF decision making. With greateracumen, Scheurerman expressly links the global rise of the central banks to the operation of speed-politics;‘How better to allow for financial regulation of our high-speed capitalism than by minimizing the directinterventionist instruments of slow moving legislatures while outfitting a group of financial experts withsignificant discretionary power to respond to fast-moving market shifts’ Scheuerman (2004, 245 fn. 92).Scheuerman outlines the various recent innovations in international economic law underpinning the legalindeterminacy governing global economic regulation in idem, chapter five, 144–186. ‘Although it remainstrue that every functioning capitalist economy requires some minimum of legal protections (private prop-erty, contracts, a system of binding dispute resolution) even that minimum is more pliable than generallyacknowledged. By no means can we endorse the orthodox view that capitalism and a robust rule of law—based on a system of clear, general, stable, prospective, public norms—are likely to go hand in hand. On thecontrary, economic globalization flourishes precisely where such legal forms are lacking. The overlapbetween economic globalization and social acceleration helps explain why. The temporal mismatch betweeneconomic activity and traditional forms of adjudication is particularly acute within global law because of thestriking employment there of new possibilities for high-speed social action.’ Idem, 181.31 Even the ‘un-theoretical’ Soros has acknowledged this point. For him, globalization ‘has an asymmetricstructure. It favors the United States and other developed countries at the center of the financial system andpenalizes the less developed economies at the periphery. The disparity between the center and the peripheryis not widely recognized, but it has played an important role in the development of the super-bubble’ Soros(2008, 93). On the manifold linkages between global neo-liberalism and speed-politics, see idem, 96–102.

262 E. Wilson

123

institutions and processes governed by both speed and simulation. As Brenner has argued,

neo-liberalism was specifically designed

to relieve the surfeit of capacity of production in manufacturing by provoking a

purge of that great ledge of high-cost, low-profit, manufacturing firms that had been

sustained by the Keynesian expansion of credit, while clearing a channel to the

profitable expansion of the low-productivity service sector by further reducing

employee compensation. It was aimed, finally, at bringing about a revitalisation of,

and thereby shift into, domestic and international financial sectors—which had been

hard hit during the 1970s by accelerating price increases and a plethora of loanable

funds—by means of suppressing inflation as well as rapid moves toward deregula-

tion, especially the elimination of capital controls (Brenner 2002 at 35).32

Intriguingly, Brenner has utilized Virilian terminology when de-noting the domestic

importation of devaluation: ‘speed up’. This term refers to the panoply of domestic neo-

liberal ‘reforms’—de-regulation, anti-unionism, cost reduction, the globalization of uneven

development—that constitutes the direct extension of pure war into internal space; ‘In fact,

all of these interrelated measures of cost reduction, neo-liberalism, and globalisation33—

unleashed with ever-increasing intensity from the shift of the 1970s by the advanced

capitalist economies—constituted little more or less than the problem of reduced

profitability’ (Brenner 2006 at xxii). For Brenner, speed up signifies ‘not so much increased

efficiency—meaning more output from the same labour input—as more output from more

labour input per hour’ (Brenner 2006 at 334). With wages flat or actually falling from the

1970s onward, ‘employers had every incentive to substitute labour for capital’ (Brenner

2002 at 79). Whatever increase in profitability that

has been achieved since the inflation of unsustainable cyclical upturns after 1973 has

been made possible, probably to the greatest extent in US history, simply by means

of an increase in exploitation—that is, the intensification of labour plus a shift in the

distribution of income from labour to capital. Because inflated profits were extracted

with relatively little recourse to increases in either labour or capital stocks, they were

translated more or less directly into increases in the profit rate (Brenner 2006 at 335).

The global economic instability of the late twentieth century ultimately proves inextricable

from ‘a revival of more decentralized forms of business which rely far more on the social

division of labour among production units than on the technical division of labour within

units’ (Arrighi 2007 at 169).

It is tempting to read these Virilian developments, expressed in more materialist terms

by Arrighi and Brenner, as a useful supplement to Harvey’s recent work on neo-liberalism

and contemporary forms of class conflict (Harvey 2003, 2005). For Harvey, the shift from

the ‘slow’ (or ‘low velocity’) sectors of manufacturing to the ‘fast’ (or ‘high velocity’)

realms of international finance forms a continuation of class struggle by other means, an

insight repeated in Virilio’s more poetic account of a ‘planet of slums’ (Davis 2006); ‘The

32 See also Brenner (2002, 40–43, 54, 57–58, 67, 81–89, 130, 132). For de-regulation as a form of inter-statecompetition, see Helleiner (1994, 167): ‘The mobility of capital was behind the dynamic. When one statebegan to deregulate and liberalize its financial markets, other states were forced to follow its lead if theyhoped to remain competitive in attracting footloose funds and financial business. The United States andGreat Britain were the leaders of the competitive deregulation movement’.33 As with neo-liberalism frequently identified with ‘Americanization’. ‘Globalization is the outcome of thegeographical projection of American marketplace society allied to technical advances in communication andtransportation’ Agnew (2005, 72).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 263

123

desert is spreading, they say. Yet it is not the desert that is spreading over the planet, but

the urban wasteland—that place where, without ever mixing, the multitude of ethnic

microcosms survive—in the shanty towns, the half-way hostels, the sink estates…’ (Virilio

2000 at 61)34 The proliferation of this urban desert is the direct result of the globalization

of the suicidal state which itself serves as the grounds for the further intensification of pure

war directed towards the interior. The accelerated social decomposition resulting from the

‘trauma’ of pure war ultimately fractures the political consensus of the liberal state; the de-

localized state is now ‘founded on threat, the economic rival [and] the social adversary’

(Virilio 1991b at 124).35 In order to police the post-liberal political order, the virtual State

increasingly directs its optical apparatus inwards, transposing the spatio-temporal domain

of ‘the enemy’ from the exterior to the interior. (Virilio 2005c at 176)36 Paradoxically, the

political paranoia surrounding the domestic threat—well evidenced by the current ‘War on

Terror’—is a direct result of the panoptical transparency of trans-national space achieved

through the global telecommunications network.37

In more narrowly economic—or materialist—terms, an even more intractable crisis

stands revealed: speed up, which undercuts wages but inflates production, renders unsus-

tainable any long-term re-stabilization of capitalism through the re-enforcement of

declining consumption, which is itself the primary sign of the social anomie of labour.

Brenner has made this point emphatically.

Rather than setting the US and the world economy on a new course, the forces

driving the New Economy actually exacerbated the fundamental problem making for

long-term slowed growth–namely, persistent chronic over-capacity in manufacturing

and related sectors making for secularly reduced profit rates for the economy as a

whole. As a consequence, that ensured the still further extension of the long [post-

1973] downturn, rendering unavoidable the equity price crash and sharp cyclical fall-

off that brought a dramatic climax to the long expansion of the 1990s and opened the

way to a new period of turbulence opening in the early years of the new millennium.

(Brenner 2006 at 268)

Only one possible solution, or perhaps I should say ‘strategy’, remained: The structural

transformation of the world economy, by means of simulation and speed, into a

systemically criminal, or criminogenic, phenomenon.

34 Mike Davis writes in a similar fashion; ‘With a literal ‘‘great wall’’ of high-tech border enforcementblocking large-scale migration to the rich countries, only the slum remains as a fully franchised solution tothe problem of warehousing this century’s surplus humanity…The urban edge is a zone of exile, a newBabylon’ Davis (2006, 200–201).35 See also ‘The Consumption of Security’, 119–129, in Virilio (1986). On the deleterious effects of speed-politics on the conventional operation of liberal democracy and the rule of law, see Scheuerman (2004).36 Davis is salient on this point. ‘The demonizing rhetorics of the various international ‘‘wars’’ on terrorism,drugs, and crime are so much semantic apartheid: they construct epistemological walls around gecekondus,favelas, and chawls that disable any honest debate about the daily violence of economic exclusion. And, asin Victorian times, the categorical criminalization of the urban poor is a self-fulfilling prophecy, guaranteedto shape a future of endless war in the streets’ Davis (2006, 202).37 Compare Davis with Virilio on this point. ‘In summary, the Pentagon’s best minds have dared to venturewhere most United Nations, World Bank or Department of State types fear to go: down the road thatlogically follows from the abdication of urban reform…Indeed, in the absence of other paradigms, thePentagon has evolved its own distinctive perspective on global urban poverty…Pentagon doctrine is beingre-shaped to support a low-intensity world war of unlimited duration against criminalized segments of theurban poor. This is the true ‘‘clash of civilizations’’’ Davis (2006, 205 and 202–203).

264 E. Wilson

123

Cyber-Capitalism and Power Crime

Markets don’t reflect facts very well, partly because they create facts themselves.—

George Soros

Credit bubbles are hard to detect.—Ben Bernanke

It is a widely recognized fact that today’s capital markets ‘operate in cyberspace, using

space-age technology and an unending proliferation of complex speculative instruments’

(Longworth 1998 at 254). Also known as ‘synthetic securities’, these speculative instru-

ments include all of the ‘usual suspects’ regularly identified with the structural sources of

the global credit crisis: VARs (value-at-risk calculations), CDOs (collateralised debt

obligation) CDS (credit default swaps), and SIVs (structured investment vehicles). What is

less well understood is the degree to which these de-stabilizing innovations constitute an

essential component of the dual movement(s) of exo- and endo-colonization. This is

evident in one of the most disturbing aspects of cyber-capitalism: the legitimatizing of high

speed financial speculation and the central role currently played by credit bubbles in wealth

creation. Bubbles quite simply ‘arise when banks treat the value of the real estate as if it

were independent of the bank’s willingness to lend against it’ (Soros 2008 at 64–65).

However, bubbles also double as an effective short term solution to the dilemma of capital

over-accumulation and stagnating personal income. (Turner 2008 at 48)

The downward pressure on prices of consumer goods that results from globalisation

allowed central banks to keep interest rates low, driving debt levels up. The housing

bubble in turn provided alternative jobs in the service sector…But they have in many

cases been contingent on the credit bubble that the authorities had to create, to fill the

void generated by the loss of manufacturing jobs (Turner 2008 at 69–70)38.

Debt, in both its public (government) and private (corporate; household) forms, has been

strategically deployed as a stimulus to artificially maintaining a rate of growth that is both

unsustainable and, critically, ‘un-realistic’.39 ‘Had it not been for the unprecedented

expansion of both public and private debt in response to these recessions [1974–1975,

1979–1982, the early 1990s], the world economy could not easily have avoided a depression’.

Thus, it was ‘the unprecedented growth of debt of all types—government, corporate and

consumer—which kept up employment and capacity utilisation and ultimately secured

stability throughout most of the length of the [post-1973] downturn’ (Brenner 2006 at 158).40

I would argue that these structural developments within cyber-capitalism can be use-

fully understood from a criminological perspective. By this, I mean that the contemporary

world economy bears all of the necessary attributes of a criminogenic phenomenon, one in

which criminal activities—or, at the very least, processes that are of marginal legality—are

effectively ‘folded’ into accepted institutional praxis, effecting a virtual disappearance of

38 For the ’housing bubble’ as the continuation of the generic ’credit bubble’, see Brenner (2006, 317, 318,319, 332). ‘Crudely put, rising equity prices were now enabling US economic growth to depend for itsexpression to an ever-greater extent on the growth of US private indebtedness’ Brenner (2002, 176).39 Brenner (2002, 44–45, 152–153, 175–176, 199, 216, 266, 268–269, 288–289, 302, 304). ‘Financializa-tion encourages households to behave like businesses, businesses to behave like banks, and banks to behavelike hedge funds’ Blackburn (2008, 100).40 ‘The Bush administration’s vision of the ‘‘ownership society’’ somehow latched onto the codicils ofJohnson’s ‘‘Great Society’’ to encourage the poor to take on housing debt at the pinnacle of the propertybubble. The quality of the arrangements…avoided the real problem, which is the true extent of property inthe United States and the folly of imagining that it can be banished by waving the magic wand of debtcreation Blackburn (2008, 73).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 265

123

the ‘criminal’ into the ‘lawful’. Here, I am expanding upon the notion of ‘criminogenic

asymmetries’ as pioneered by Nikos Passas (Passas 2000). For Passas, criminogenic

phenomena constitute

structural disparities, mismatches and inequalities in the spheres of politics, culture,

the economy and the law. Asymmetries are criminogenic in that (1) they generate or

strengthen the demand for illegal goods and services; (2) they generate incentives for

particular actors to participate in illegal transactions; (3) they reduce the ability of

authorities to control illegal activities (Passas 2000 at 23).

There are two critical features to note in this definition. The first is the determining supply-

and-demand logic at work that serves to underpin a mimetic relationship between licit and

illicit market forces.

Asymmetries generate the demand for goods that are illegal, unethical or embar-

rassing.41 Illegal markets follow the rules of supply and demand, sometimes even

more strictly than legitimate markets—because the latter often enjoy protective

measures introduced by nation states or groups of states. Whenever there is a gap

between local demand and supply, cross-border trade42 is likely to develop. If the

goods or services happen to be outlawed, then illegal enterprises will emerge to meet

the demand. In this respect, there is no difference between conventional and criminalenterprises (Passas 2000 at 24).43

The final sentence is the crucial one. Criminogenic asymmetries subvert orthodox

conceptions of legitimacy that demarcate the conventional boundaries between the ‘legal’

and the ‘illegal’. The mimetic effect produced by the criminogenic is that legal and illegal

actors begin to imitate, and even appropriate, the reasoning and behavior of the other

(Passas and Nelken 1993). This leads to the second critical feature: the criminogenic does

not merely denote the criminal but the far more subversive category of the supra- or extra-

legal as well. The collapse of orthodox modes of juridical demarcation yields an epistemic

crisis within political authority in which parallel market structures become effectively de-

criminalized through the tactical alterations of public discourse; as Wark reminds us, the

market ‘doesn’t bypass the state in the deregulated financial environment. On the contrary,

it is all the more central to it. State institutions…have a powerful ability to administer the

referents’ (Wark 1994 at 185). Employing the same imaginary as both Wark and Held,

Passas argues that ‘when the business is illegal all that changes are some adjustments in

modus operandi, technology, and the social networks that will be involved. In some cases,

we have a mere re-description of practices to make them appear outside legal prohibitive

provisions’ (Passas 2000 at 24).44 The realm of the criminogenic itself constitutes site of a

41 Unfortunately, Passas does not elaborate on what falls into the last category.42 Although Passas means this to refer to trans-national geographical space, ‘cross-border’ may just asusefully employed to describe criminogenic migrations across domestic juridical or political spaces.43 Emphasis added.44 On this point, see also Vincenzo Ruggiero; ‘today, economic enterprise is struggling to establish a newmoral justification for its activity. For this reason, every economic act, even if it is illegitimate, may becomenormative, in that it can establish new regulations and values, and may promote new ethical codes andlegitimacies’ Ruggiero (2009, 122). For an outstanding example of the corporate legitimation of otherwiseillicit economic practices—in this case, ‘control fraud’—see Tillman (2009). See also Black (2005,734–755). ‘Frauds are a classic case of market failure due to asymmetric information…Accounting fraud isan optimal [criminogenic] strategy because it simultaneously produces record (albeit fictional) profits andprevents the recognition of real losses.’ Idem, 739 and 736.

266 E. Wilson

123

particular form of disappearance: the eradication of the border between Law and Crime.45

This becomes even more apparent when we recall how the global credit crisis has revealed

the effective disappearance of traditional demarcations between public and private spaces.

‘Recent housing bubbles have not been the fault of central banks per se, but of

governments allowing corporate power to exploit wage differentials in the pursuit of higher

profit margins’ (Turner 2008 at 6); as a result, ‘the easy lending fostered by Western

governments has fuelled mergers, takeovers and acquisitions by private equity funds that

concentrates corporate power, underpinning the fundamental forces that create asset

bubbles’ (Turner 2008 at 12). Crucially, government created speculation operates in

international as well as national space.

The systematic tearing down of trade barriers in the absence of appropriate protection

and rights for ordinary workers accelerated a two decade trend towards higher profit

ratios in the West. That was unsustainable. Profit ratios can only continue to rise at the

expense of a further decline in the share of national income taken as labour income, or

wages. And such a divergence will increase the tendency and political pressure for

consumer borrowing and house price inflation to fill the gap, between over-investment

and inadequate demand. And this dichotomy will ultimately trigger a financial crisis

that will lead to a sudden reversal in profit margins (Turner 2008 at 7–8).

Cyber-capitalism, along with all of its attendant risks of catastrophe, is not merely an

economic system, but a method of political and social control grounded upon pure war.

The accumulation of trade surpluses in emerging markets and huge foreign exchange

reserves mirrored the explosion of consumer debt in the West. Governments in

industrialised economies have appeased the process, because it fits neatly with their

avowed strategy of promoting free trade, irrespective of the costs. And the asset

bubbles that fill in the gap in demand allow them to deceive their citizens into

believing that globalisation in its current form works (Turner 2008 at 11).46

45 For an extended discussion of the radical iterability governing the discursive construction of both Lawand Crime, see Wilson (2009a). It is important to keep in mind that the criminogenic is not identical with the‘criminal’. While crime may be defined as the violation of clearly established laws and norms—as reflectedin the formal legalism preferred by orthodox criminology—the criminogenic can be usefully understood asencompassing practices that would ordinarily be denoted as criminal if not but for the operation of politicalor judicial processes that effectively de-criminalize the illicit behaviors. Criminognic phenomena, therefore,pose a direct challenge to the validity of mainstream criminology, which tends to reduce crime to con-ventional sociological categories of deviance and anti-social behavior. ‘The tendency of orthodox crimi-nology to focus on private crimes of greed, lust and rage—perhaps we should think of this as criminology’sversion of the ‘‘nuts, sluts and perverts’’ fetish that has impoverished the sociology of deviance—hasrendered institutional crimes of power, that is, corporate, political and state crimes—relatively minor areasof study within criminology’ Michalowski (2009, 312).46 Like Turner, Greider is adamant in framing the structural dynamics of globalization as the primary cause ofthe global credit crisis. ‘Instability, in other words, flowed from the fracturing of power and responsibility thatglobalization has produced. The immediate force behind the more dramatic swings and currency exchangevalues was, after all, the monetary policy of the three major central banks [US, Japan Germany] setting interestrates and controlling virtual money supplies. But the currency traders played off those actions, kibitzing andspeculating like theatre critics, occasionally vetoing the government’s policy decisions by ganging up andattacking them. And each central bank was itself trapped between its own conflicting obligations—thedomestic economy versus the global monetary system’ Greider (1997, 251–252). Michel Albert is even moreunsparing in his language; ‘Divided and disunited the nation states and their puny borders can offer no realresistance to the globalized capitalist economy’ Cited in Longworth (1998, 168). As Held expresses it withconsiderable understatement, ‘In this case, the boundaries between domestic markets and global affairs may beblurred’ Held et al. (1999, 15). What all three are describing could be expressed in Virilian terms as the loss, ordisappearance, of the state as the referent, or the ‘real’, of international politics.

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 267

123

The ultimate Virilian irony at work here is that the suicidal state has quite literally

‘disappeared’ into its own logistics of perception. This is clear to even mainstream

commentators like Soros; ‘What is worse, the newly invented methods, and instruments

were so sophisticated that the regulatory authorities lost the ability to calculate the risks

involved. They came to depend on the risk control methods developed by the institutions

themselves’ (Soros 2008 at 116–117).47 Most important here is the realization that credit

bubbles are inseparable from speed.

On the basis of increased borrowing and stock issuance…these same corpora-

tions…were enabled to accelerate investment in advance of profits, making for faster

productivity growth [speed up] and even greater potential for returns. Higher

‘expected profits’ made for still more elevated equity prices, which enabled further

stepped-up borrowing and stock issues, allowing still more rapid capital accumula-

tion, making for further leaps forward in technology, enabling productivity growth to

rise even higher, making possible even higher expected profits…issuing in what Fed

chairman Alan Greenspan celebrated as a ‘virtuous cycle’ of economic expansion

(Brenner 2006 at 268).

What both Soros and Brenner are describing, even without knowing it, is an

epistemological crisis that is manifesting itself through material(ist) phenomena.

The newly invented financial instruments and the newly introduced trading and

financial techniques suffered from a fatal flaw. They were based on the assumption

that financial markets tend towards equilibrium…This assumption left out of account

the impact of the new instruments and new techniques which changed the func-

tioning of financial markets out of all recognition (Soros 2008 at 115).

On an empirical level, we can trace the criminogenic transformation of cyber-capitalism

through the proliferation of those illegal forms of economic institutions that emerged as key

signs of the world financial economy in the 1980s (Dick 2009): off-shore tax havens, the rise

of ‘hot money’ and money-laundering,48 and the creation of the world-wide ‘shadow

banking’ system (Blackburn 2008 at 68–84) that served as a vital but covert nexus

between governments, national security agencies, and trans-national criminal cartels.49

47 In Soros’ opinion, the US housing bubble ‘was supported by a preliminary misconception that the valueof the collateral was not affected by the willingness to lend. That is the most common misconception thathas fuelled bubbles in the past, particularly in the real estate area.’ Idem, 83.48 Guilhem Fabre has implicitly identified international money-laundering as a phenomenon of speed-politics; ‘political will and political means should take into account these realities and overtake this opaquesystem, where the methods of supervision and the rules of the game are at least a decade behind the rapidityof financial flows and the existing capacities for circumvention’ Fabre (2009, 95). For a useful snap-shot ofthe trans-national money-laundering system during the heyday of the ‘roaring nineties’, see Woods (1998).Beginning in the early 1990s, it was apparent that the critical variable to transnational money-launderingwas the rise of ‘cyber-currency’ or ‘virtual money’; idem, 4, 13–14, 37, 177 and 181. See also Lilley (2003,chapter six, 115–132), passim.49 A critical milestone of the criminogenic evolution of the world economy was reached in 1972 with theestablishment of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI. See Passas (1993, 1994, 1995,1996). For an introductory treatment of the other two great criminogenic banks of the 1980s—Nugen Handand Ambrosiano—see Lernoux (1984, chapters 4, 9 and 10). According to Passas, more attention ‘has beenpaid to the use of BCCI for criminal purposes than to the demand for its illegal services, which reflectsglobal structural problems’ Passas (1995, 397). As we should expect, these ‘global structural problems’ areinseparable from speed; ‘BCCI was promoting itself as the friendly ‘‘can-do’’ bank. It was extremely fast atproviding letters of credit or loan, it was more personal than other major banks, and had ‘‘no questionsasked’’ policies’ Passas (1994, 72). The myriad linkages between the covert agencies of the State and cross-

268 E. Wilson

123

On a more theoretically sophisticated level, criminogenic cyber-capitalism is wholly

consistent with the operational requirements of what critical criminologists have de-noted as

‘power crime’, which I understand as the conjunction of criminogenic asymmetries with

simulation.

For ‘power crime’, I use the definition provided by Passas (Passas 2007a): fraud and

corruption by elites that possess substantial governmental power or economic power.

Passas identifies two ‘levels of dynamism’ integral to power crime that are of particular

interest to me. The first is spatial, ‘that elites are able to choose to operate wherever the

legal, political, economic and cultural environment is most criminogenic and the payoffs to

abuse the greatest’. The second is causal, ‘that elites are able to change the environment

[and]… make it far more criminogenic’ (Passas 2007a). If we read these definitions

through Virilian ‘lenses’, we come to realize that the criminogenic variable that connects

space with causality is speed-politics: the relationship between power and speed, therefore,

is of considerable criminological importance. While Passas’ account does not explicitly

refer to speed, his understanding of power crime is highly conducive to a Virilian analysis,

precisely because the essence of power crime is the control over definitions, perceptions,

and appearances.50 Although certainly not reducible to the visual, any critical under-

standing of power crime would benefit tremendously from careful consideration of the

optical dimensions of the phenomenon. ‘Normal’ crime, because it is a ‘low-velocity’

phenomenon, is highly susceptible to detection and enforcement: ‘Normally, thieves face a

fairly symmetrical environment: to steal more they have to take greater risks of detection,

prosecution and sanction’ (Passas 2007b). By contrast, power crime, precisely because it is

a ‘high-velocity’ phenomenon operating on the level of perception, is able to effectively

‘disappear’ into a total criminogenic environment of its own making. Accordingly, ‘elite

criminals’ are the very ones able to create an ‘environment in which engaging in massive

fraud and corruption increases one’s political power and status and greatly reduces the

risks of detection and prosecution. Elite criminals optimise by creating fraud networks that

help them maximize this asymmetry of risk and reward’ (Passas 2007b at 2).51 Speed itself

Footnote 49 continuedborder criminal organizations that first began to surface in public awareness following the Vietnam Warevidences a parallel evolution of global political economy that is de-noted as parapolitics, ‘a system orpractice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished’ Scott (1972, 171). For a recentexplication of the meaning of the parapolitical, see Cribb (2009).50 The account is provided by Ruggiero and Michael Welch is more illustrative of this. ‘Perpetrators ofpower crime are offenders who possess an exorbitantly exceeding amount of material and symbolicresources when compared to those possessed by their victims…We can argue, with respect to power crimes,that criminal designations are controversial and highly problematic, due to the higher degree of freedomenjoyed by perpetrators. The capacity to control the effects of their actions allows those who have morefreedom to conceal (or ‘‘negotiate’’) the criminal nature of their actions. If we translate the notion offreedom into that of resources, we can argue that those possessing a larger quantity and variety of them alsohave greater possibilities of attributing criminal definitions to others and repelling those that others attributeto them. They also have greater ability to control the effects of their criminal activity, and usually do notallow this to appear and be designated as such’ Ruggiero and Welch (2009, 298). The author’s account ofthe manipulation of ‘symbolic resources’ as a means of effecting the perceptual ‘disappearance’ of criminalsubstance is highly suggestive of a simulated event.51 The related phenomenon of ‘control fraud’ is also a direct product of the formation of systemic ‘crim-inogenic institutional frameworks’ throughout the 1990s. Neo-liberal policy changes ‘were influenced by theargument that [high speed] New Economy industries operated under a different set of economic rules than[low speed] Old Economy industries and were largely self-regulating. Concurrent with these changes was abroader trend (particularly among New Economy industries) towards financialization—‘‘a pattern ofaccumulation in which profits accrue primarily through financial channels rather than through trade andcommodity production.’’’ Tillman (2009, 370).

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 269

123

facilitates the transformation of the ‘real’ of a wholly ‘virtual’ form of reality that effec-

tively supersedes the notions of legality and political accountability, an insight that has

been expressed in somewhat theoretically naı̈ve terms by Greider; ‘The overall logic of

[neo-liberalism] began to make more sense if one put aside the usual rationales for its

policies and assumed, instead, that it was serving a deeper historical purpose: compelling

people to accept capitalism’s revolutionary transformation’ (Greider 1997 at 314).52 Power

crime, a criminogenic phenomenon governed by both speed and simulation, constitutes an

example of what Virilio would classify as an ‘accident’ of pure war and the logistics of

perception. The ‘accident’ of power crime is the sign that cyber-capitalism has disappeared

into a fast moving criminogenic ‘post-reality’.

The Criminogenic ‘Accident’

[W]hen disillusion falls upon an over-optimistic and over-bought market, it should

fall with sudden and even catastrophic force.—John Maynard Keynes

A surprising number of weaknesses were revealed in a remarkably short period of

time.—George Soros

The rapidity of a phenomenon liquidates you.—Paul Virilio

The accident, a signature Virilian concept, is a ‘diagnostic of technology’ (Der Derian and

Virilio 1998 at 20). Constituting the ‘revelation of the identity of the object’ (Virilio and

Lotringer 1997 at 39), the accident serves as an ‘indirect kind of oeuvre, a consequence of

substance…An accident is in fact an assault on the propriety of substance, an unveiling of

its nakedness, of the poverty of whatever, whoever is confronted by what happensunexpectedly—to people as much as to their creations’ (Virilio 2005a at 28). It is only

through the failure of a new technology or system of social relations that the nature of the

substance of the thing in question stands fully revealed. Virilio deploys the ‘accident’ as a

Derridean pun, a textual displacement caused by a sudden realisation of the utterly

fortuitous nature of all linguistic construction that blurs the operational ‘distinction

between [the] surface features of the discourse and its underlying logic’ (Culler 1983 at

146). The subversive work of the ‘pun’ in this instance is accomplished through the

deliberate conjunction of the double meaning of ‘accident’: as a derived, or contingent,

ontological property and as the material result of industrial and technological praxis.

Virilio extends his techno-centric critique of pure war through drawing our attention to

both the causal centrality and the constructive agency of speed: ‘If to invent the substance

is, indirectly, to invent the accident, then the more powerful and efficient the invention, the

more dramatic the accident’ (Virilio 2005c at 85). If pure war, then, is the true substance,

the contingent, or accidental, properties of pure war will manifest themselves through the

effects of trauma and decomposition induced by speed. The accident of speed is power

52 Helleiner makes the fascinating point that the neutralization of political opposition to neo-liberalism verymuch depends upon the ‘low visibility’ of the criminogenic alterations of global finance; see idem (1994,19–20 and 203–205). ‘‘‘It is obvious that the pursuit of liberalisation of capital movements generates lesconflict and less ardour than the maintenance of free trade. The reason is that trade restrictions have quickand visible effects on jobs and profits, whereas the impact of restrictions on capital flows is invisible to thepublic and quite often a matter of great uncertainty for the specialists.’’’ Raymond Bertrand, cited in idem,204–205. Emphasis added. There is nothing more ontologically lethal than a subversive metaphor.

270 E. Wilson

123

crime; the contingent property that is hidden but that, when ‘seen’, or made transparent,

reveals the essence of the substance. The accident, however, because it is catastrophic,

signifies substance as negativity; here, the optical effect of power crime, an ‘accidental’

property of speed-politics. We should not be surprised, then, that the Virilian accident

corresponds remarkably well with Held’s definition of globalization that I used to begin

this paper; ‘The growing extensity [trans-border; interregional], intensity [volume] and

velocity [speed] of global interactions may also be associated with a developing

enmeshment of the local and global such that the impact of distant events is magnified

while even the most local developments may come to have enormous global consequences’

(Held et al. 1999 at 15). Not surprised, that is, because all of Virilio’s seminal notions—

pure war, speed-politics, the logistics of perception, disappearance, the accident—form

part of a general account of globalization that Virilio describes utilizing the highly met-

aphorical language and imaginary of catastrophism.

After the globalization of telecommunications, one should expect a generalized kind

of accident, a never-seen-before accident. It would be just as astonishing as global

time is, this never-seen-before kind of time. A generalized accident would be

something like what Epicurus called ‘the accident of accidents’. The stock-market

collapse is merely a slight prefiguration of it. Nobody has seen this generalized

accident yet. But then watch out as you hear talk about the ‘financial bubble’ in the

economy: a very significant metaphor is used here, and it conjures up visions of some

kind of cloud, reminding us of other clouds just as frightening as those of Cherny-

bol…When one raises the question about the risks of accidents on the information

(super) highways, the point is not about the information in itself, the point is about

the absolute velocity of electronic data. The problem here is interactivity. Computer

science is not the problem, but computer communication, or rather the (not yet full

known) potential of computer communication (Virilio 1995b).

The ‘global credit crisis’ is a criminogenic ‘event’; power crime is ‘the accident’ of the

substance of cyber-capitalism. The ‘credit crunch’ is nothing other than the ‘irruption’ of

the lingering but denied presence of capital-as-the-social-as-referent: the ‘crisis’ is that the

optical/epistemic machinery of cyber-capitalism is no longer able to objectively

differentiate between the ‘true’ and the ‘false’. What we face is the ‘return of the

repressed/Real’ in the form of a systemic recessionary crisis

Conclusion

What is amazing is that the lesson has still not been learned.—George Soros

Speed is violence.—Paul Virilio

We no longer value the truth for there is no profit in it.

The true world-historical failure of capitalism lies not within its inability to transcend its

internal contradictions but in its inability to achieve a self-grounding in stable and

unlimited growth. The cyber-capitalist world economy is inevitably, and necessarily,

suicidal: it invariably strives to create the pre-conditions for its ultimate ‘disappearance’;

the orthodox cycle of boom/bust has been replaced by the traumatic repetition of bubble/

burst. We have abandoned the realm of Keynesian referents and are now governed by the

fatal sovereignty of Bataille’s archaic ‘accursed share’: the surplus product/value that must

be periodically—and ritualistically—destroyed in order to preserve homeostasis (Bataille

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 271

123

1991).53 Simulated cyber-capitalism was devised as the solution to the intractable problem

of over-accumulation/declining profitability; yet, simulation creates the catastrophic pre-

conditions for the ‘accidental’ disappearance of the world-economy. To the degree that

cyber-capitalism is co-determinate with simulation, the world-economy has become ‘sui-

cidal’; that is, it has ontologically ‘disappeared’ through its inability to recognise itself, to

maintain the dichotomy between true and false, public and private, Law and Crime—a

criminogenic hyper-reality. The ‘collapse’ of the cyber-capitalist world economy into

criminogenic hyper-reality is itself the signification of the permanent loss of the ‘truth’ of

Crime.

References

Agnew, J. (2005). Hegemony: The new shape of global power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.Akerlof, G. A., et al. (1993). Looting: The economic underworld of bankruptcy for profit. Brookings Papers

on Economic Activity, 1993(2), 1–73.Alexander, J. B. (2003). Winning the war: Advanced weapons, strategies and concepts for the post-9/11

world. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Armitage, J. (Ed.). (2000). Paul Virilio: From modernism to hypermodernism and beyond. London: SAGE

Publications.Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. London: Verso.Bataille, G. (1991). The accursed share: An essay on general economy (Vol. 1). New York: Zone Books.Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations (P. Foss, P. Patton, & P. Beitchman, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic exchange and death (I. Hamilton Grant, Trans.). SAGE Publications:

London.Black, W. K. (2005). ‘Control Frauds’ as financial super-predators. Journal of Socio-Economics, 34,

734–755.

53 I take with extreme seriousness Harvey’s preliminary speculations in his The New Imperialism and ABrief History of Neo-Liberalism, that the orthodox and highly teleological Marxist account of the historicalevolution of capitalism is fundamentally mistaken. The problem is the ‘true’ role played by the primitivestage of accumulation—a violent predatory capitalism that seeks out sustainable rates of profit through thedirect expropriation of wealth through violence and extortion. In the seminal eighth chapter of volume oneof Capital, Marx clearly situates primitive accumulation at the very origins of the capitalist world-economyin the 16th and 17th centuries, but then rapidly passes over this embryonic stage in favour of later and moresophisticated forms of surplus extraction. Along with Harvey and other ‘open’ neo-Marxists, I have come todoubt the viability of this highly teleological narrative. My own work on parapolitics has led me to concludethat primitive modes of accumulation have not been supplanted by ‘modern’ forms, but have co-evolved,penetrating allegedly non-extortionist forms. A more accurate model than the one offered by Marx inCapital is that supplied by Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals, which interprets the ‘modern’ not as thedialectical suspension of the primitive but as the anti-dialectical sublimation of the archaic, in which‘primitive’ and ‘modern’ structures and practices irrationally co-exist. I would go beyond Harvey and arguethat primitive accumulation not only co-exists with modern forms of production, it remains the primarymeans of wealth creation; it is through ‘primitive’ acts of violent appropriation that the fatal catastrophe ofcapital over-accumulation can be indefinitely postponed—but not, of course, dialectically suspended. On thecentrality of systemic theft, or ‘collective embezzlement’ to the corporate culture of cyber-capitalism, seeAkerlof et al. (1993). ‘Much as violations of worker safety standards or environmental protection laws are tothe industrial production process, collective embezzlement may be the signature crime of finance capital-ism…Unrestrained by investments in infrastructure and with little of their own capital at stake, those whohandle other people’s money in the casino economy truly operate in a ‘‘criminogenic environment’’’Calavita et al. (1997, 171–2). This accords well with Black’s likening of control fraud to a form of ‘looting’that is highly analogous to a primitive form of accumulation; Black (2005, 738). If I am right, then itbecomes imperative to re-conceptualize the whole of global political economy in terms of the criminogenic,the primary analytical tool with which to express the ‘dangerous supplement’ of primitive accumulation.

272 E. Wilson

123

Blackburn, R. (2008). The subprime crisis. New Left Review, 50, 63–106.Block, F. L. (1977). The origins of international economic disorder: A study of United States International

Monetary Policy from World War II to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.Brenner, R. (2002). The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy. London: Verso.Brenner, R. (2006). The economics of global turbulence: The advanced capitalist economies from Long

Boom to Long Downturn, 1945–2005. London: Verso.Calavita, K., Pontell, H. N., & Tillman, R. H. (1997). Big money crime: Fraud and politics in the savings

and loan crisis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Chang, H.-J. (2003). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. London:

Anthem Press.Cribb, R. (2009). Introduction: Parapolitics, shadow government and criminal sovereignty. In E. Wilson

(Ed.), Government of the shadows: Parapolitics and criminal sovereignty (pp. 1–9). London: PlutoPress.

Cubitt, S. (2001). Simulation and social theory. London: SAGE Publications.Culler, J. (1983). On deconstruction: The theory and criticism of structuralism. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London: Verso.Der Derian, J. (2001). Virtuous war: Mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment network. Boul-

der: Westview Press.Der Derian, J., & Virilio, P. (1998). ‘Is the author dead? An interview with Paul Virilio. In J. Der Derian

(Ed.), The Virilio reader (pp. 16–21). Oxford: Blackwell.Dick, H. (2009). The shadow economy: Markets, crime and the state. In E. Wilson (Ed.), Government of the

shadows: Parapolitics and criminal sovereignty (pp. 97–110). London: Pluto Press.Eichengreen, B. (1996). Globalizing capital: A history of the international monetary system. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.Fabre, G. (2009). Prospering from crime: Money laundering and financial crises. In E. Wilson (Ed.),

Government of the shadows: Parapolitics and criminal sovereignty (pp. 90–96). London: Pluto Press.Gane, M. (1993). Introduction. In Baudrillard 1993, (pp. vii–x).Gane, M. (2000). Paul Virilio’s bunker theorizing. In J. Armitage (Ed.), Paul Virilio: From modernism to

hypermodernism and beyond (pp. 85–102). London: SAGE Publications.Gowan, P. (1999). The global gamble: Washington’s Faustian bid for world dominance. London: Verso.Greider, W. (1997). One world, ready or not: The manic logic of global capitalism. New York: Simon and

Schuster Paperbacks.Harvey, D. (1999). The limits to capital (2nd ed.). London: Verso.Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Held, D., et al. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Helleiner, E. (1994). States and the reemergence of global finance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Hudson, M. (2003). Super imperialism: The origin and fundamentals of U.S. world dominance (2nd ed.).

London: Pluto Press.Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Penguin Books.Lernoux, P. (1984). In banks we trust. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Lilley, P. (2003). Dirty dealing: The untold truth about global money laundering, international crime and

terrorism (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.Longworth, R. C. (1998). Global squeeze: The coming crisis for first-world nations. Chicago: Contemporary

Books.Michalowski, R. (2009). Power, crime and criminology in the new imperial age. Crime, Law and Social

Change, 51(2009), 303–325.Passas, N. (1993). Structural sources of international crime: Policy lessons from the BCCI Scandal. Crime,

Law and Social Change, 20, 293–309.Passas, N. (1994). I cheat, therefore i exist? The BCCI scandal IN CONTEXT. In W. Michael Hoffman,

et al. (Eds.), Emerging global business ethics (pp. 69–78). Westport: Quorum.Passas, N. (1995). The mirror of global evils: A review essay on the BCCI affair. Justice Quarterly, 12(2),

377–405.Passas, N. (1996). The genesis of the BCCI scandal. Journal of Law and Society, 23(1), 57–77.Passas, N. (2000). Globalization and international crime: Effects of criminogenic asymmetries. In

P. Williams & D. Vlassis (Eds.), Combating transnational crime: Concepts, activities and responses(pp. 22–56). New York: Routledge.

Criminogenic Cyber-Capitalism 273

123

Passas, N. (2007a). Corruption in the procurement process and outsourcing government functions: Issues,cases, case studies, implications. Report Prepared for the Institute of Fraud Prevention, Report toInstitute for Northeastern University, Boston February 2007.

Passas, N. (2007b). Corruption in the procurement process/outsourcing government functions. Report to theInstitute for Fraud Prevention. Shortened version prepared by W. Black. Northeastern University,Boston February 2007.

Passas, N., & Nelken, D. (1993). The thin line between legitimate and criminal enterprises: Subsidiary fraudin the European Community. Crime, Law and Social Change, 19, 223–243.

Ruggiero, V. (2009). Transnational crime in global illicit economies. In E. Wilson (Ed.), Government of theshadows: Parapolitics and criminal sovereignty (pp. 117–129). London: Pluto Press.

Ruggiero, V., & Welch, M. (2009). Power crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51, 297–301.Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.Scheuerman, W. E. (2004). Liberal democracy and the social acceleration of time. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.Scott, P. D. (1972). The war conspiracy: The secret road to the second Indochina War. Indianapolis: Bobbs-

Merrill.Silver, B. J., & Arrighi, G. (2003). Polyani’s ‘Double Movement’: The Belle Epoques of British and U.S.

Hegemony compared. Politics and Society, 3(12), 325–355.Soros, G. (2008). The new paradigm for financial markets: The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means. New

York: Public Affairs.Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Tillman, R. (2009). Reputations and corporate malfeasance: Collusive networks in financial statement fraud.

Crime, Law and Social Change, 51, 365–382.Turner, G. (2008). The credit crunch: Housing bubbles, globalisation and worldwide economic crisis.

London: Pluto Press.Ullman, H. K., & Wade, J. P., Jr. (1998). Rapid dominance—A force for all seasons. Technologies and

systems for achieving shock and awe: A real revolution in military affairs. London: Royal UnitedServices Institute for Defense Studies.

Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics (M. Polizotti, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).Virilio, P. (1989). War and cinema: The Logistics of Perception. Trans. Patrick Camiller. London: Verso.Virilio, P. (1991a). The aesthetics of disappearance (P. Beitchman, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).Virilio, P. (1991b). Lost dimension (D. Moshenberg, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).Virilio, P. (1994). The vision machine (J. Rose, Trans.). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Virilio, P. (1995a). The silence of the lambs: Paul Virilio in conversation: interview with Carlos Oliveria.

CTHEORY.Virilio, P. (1995b). Speed and information: Cyberspace alarm! CTHEORY.Virilio, P. (1999). Polar inertia. London: SAGE Publications.Virilio, P. (2000). Strategy of deception Tran. Chris Turner. London: Verso.Virilio, P. (2005a). City of panic (J. Rose, Trans.). Oxford: Berg.Virilio, P. (2005b). Desert screen: War at the speed of light (M. Degener, Trans.). New York: Continuum.Virilio, P. (2005c). Negative horizon: An essay in dromoscopy (M. Degener, Trans.). New York: Continuum.Virilio, P., & Lotringer, S. (1997). Pure war (M. Polizotti, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e).Wark, M. (1994). Virtual geography: Living with global media events. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.Wilson, E. (2009a). Deconstructing the shadows. In E. Wilson (Ed.), Government of the shadows: Para-

politics and criminal sovereignty (pp. 1–55). London: Pluto Press.Wilson, E. (2009b). Speed/pure war/power crime: Paul Virilio on the criminogenic accident and the virtual

disappearance of the suicidal state. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51(3–4), 413–434.Woods, B. F. (1998). The art and science of money laundering: Inside the commerce of the international

narcotics traffickers. Boulder: Paladin Press.

274 E. Wilson

123