Surveillance Capitalism

‘Even the panopticon of Bentham design is prosaic compared to this new architecture’ (Zuboff, 2015, p.3)

Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff, 2014) is a complex system of data extraction, accumulation and commodification. This report examines its key components, historical context and emergence as a new capitalist mode of production. It also explores discursive debates, immediate risks, and the broader ethical and democratic challenges it presents.

To begin, Surveillance Capitalism, first introduced by Zuboff in her 2014 essay Allgemine Zeitung, is an ever-expanding mode of production in which mass data is commodified and exploited for commercial gain. This process, known as Datafication, is defined as ‘an assemblage of infrastructures, discourses, and practises that produce political-economic regimes’ (denick, 2022, p.2). Zuboff refers to the corporations that drive Datafication and data extraction as ‘the Big other’ and describes this system as ‘a coup from above’ (Zuboff, 2015, p.3), emphasising how it operates through constant surveillance of human behaviours via extractive platforms. Unlike traditional capitalism, often associated with classical liberalism, the production of tangible commodities is no longer central. Instead, companies extract human experiences, surplus behaviour, to predict commercial trends, manipulate consumer choices and even influence political opinions. This process fuels a ‘perpetual cycle of capital [data] accumulation’ (Sadowski, 2019, p.1).

Ruder (2022, p.6) identifies four key elements of surveillance capitalism, the first being extraction imperatives, which refers to the desire to collect as much data as possible. This is followed by prediction imperatives, where collected data is leveraged for profit maximisation. The third element, architecture of behaviour, reflects the ability to control and predict consumer actions, while the fourth, extreme asymmetries, reinforces the centralisation of power. Much like other aspects of post-capitalist society, the doctrine surrounds naivety, as Zuboff notes,’ Surveillance capitalism thrives on the publics ignorance’(Zuboff, 2015, p7). The Big Other maintains this ignorance through rhetoric that portrays data as a naturally occurring raw material, rather than something actively produced and extracted. This assumption is false. Data is not simply ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered as if it already exists (Gitelman, 2013); rather, the process of Datafication turns individuals into commodities, transforming their personal information into economic value. This aligns with Smythes (1981) concept of the ‘audience commodity’, wherein human attention and engagement becomes commercial assets. Thus, despite claims that data collection is passive or inevitable, surveillance capitalism is a ‘deeply intentional and highly consequential new form of accumulation’ (Zuboff, 2015, p.1). Nevertheless, due to the centralisation of power, exploitative data extraction techniques have been increasingly outsourced to the Global South, where tech corporations face fewer economic and political constraints. With nearly half the population computer-mediated, the system has become self-sustaining: ‘the more users produce more exhaust that improves the predictive value of analyses and results in more lucrative auctions (Zuboff, 2015, p.3). The adaptability of surveillance capitalism lies in its immunity to the traditional paradigm of employment and consumption (Zuboff, 2015).

Furthermore, Srnicek (2017) examines how surveillance capitalism manifests through platform capitalism, in which companies strive for a ‘hegemonic model’ under what he terms ‘Californian Ideology’ (Srnicek, 2017, p.3-5). Unlike with the Fordist era, where industries prioritised profit through manufacturing, platform-based companies prioritise growth through network effects and data extraction. Srnicek defines platforms as, ‘digital infrastructures that enables two or more groups to interact. They therefore position themselves as intermediaries that bring together different users’ (Srnicek, 2017, p.43). These platforms provide free tools that encourage users to generate data, thereby accelerating the cycle of data extraction and monetisation. Following Zuboff’s logic, the more users on a platform, the more data is generated, leading to greater extraction and value accumulation.  Within platform capitalism, Srnicek identifies five dominant platform models that contribute to surveillance capitalism: advertising platforms, which monetise user data through targeted ads; cloud platforms, which provide digital infrastructure for businesses; industrial platforms, which integrate data into manufacturing; product platforms, which transform traditional goods into services through subscription models; and lean platforms, which minimise costs by outsourcing labour while maximising data extraction. Each type of platform plays a distinct role, yet they all contribute to the broader surveillance capitalist economy, using network effects to accumulate and monetise data. As a result, these corporations optimise either monetary capital or strategic knowledge, reinforcing the cycle of accumulation and further embedding surveillance capitalism within the global economy.

Moving beyond the specifics of surveillance capitalism, it is essential to consider the historical and contemporary economic conditions that created the ideal environment for its emergence and expansion. As Srnicek (2017, p.5) points out, three key economic moments facilitated the rise of tech corporations: ‘the response to the economic downturn of the 1970s, the boom and bust of the 1990s, and the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis’. Underpinning all these shifts is the financialisation of society, marking the transition from traditional capitalism to what Mason (2015, p.4) describes as post-capitalism. Most economic scholars are familiar with Marx’s flows of capital. In Capital, volume II (1885), Marx outlines the circulation of capital within a capitalist system as C-M-C’, while in Volume I (1867), he examines capital accumulation through M-C-M’. However, the capital flow paradigm most relevant here is a contemporary adaption by Lazzarato (2012), who reconfigures it to reflect the logic of financialised capitalism. His formulation, M-M’, represents an economic system in which profit is generated directly from money, bypassing the intermediary of commodity production. This shift, he argues, reinforces the creditor-debtor relationship and strengthens the mechanisms underpinning surveillance capitalism.

This transformation is a direct consequence of monetary policies implemented after the 1970’s crash, which were further entrenched following the 2008 financial crisis. As the global economy became increasingly reliant on interest rates, austerity measures, and privatisation; the dot-com boom of the 1990s provided investors with a new speculative frontier. This reflects a fundamental characteristic of capitalism, ‘it’s ability to reproduce itself by reviving old strategies of accumulation in new spaces and through new mechanisms’ (Greene & Joseph, 2015, p.224). The role of venture capital, VC, in this process is particularly significant. At the peak of the dot-com boom, ‘technology stocks rose by 300%’ (Perez, 2009, p.115) as capitalists sought out new sources of profit. This shift subjected previously non-commodified areas of life to market logic, paving the way what has now become data capitalism. As Konczal and Abernathy (2015) argue, the expansion of data-driven capitalism was able to ‘take advantage of the ideological and regulatory groundwork that had been laid since the 1980s’. This ideological framework is now so deeply entrenched that both capitalists and state leaders routinely argue that any restriction on the ‘flow of data hinders economic growth and technological innovation’ (Morozov, 2015, p.5). In this view, any barrier to surveillance capitalism is framed as a barrier to free trade and open markets. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that without financialisation- actively promoted by capitalists, states and international institutions, surveillance capitalism would not hold the power it does today.

Now shifting from the components and context of surveillance capitalism, the focus turns to discursive disagreements and ethical debates surrounding its implications. One central argument is whether data should be understood as a commodity or capital, and what this distinction reveals about the structural dynamics of imperialism and the emergence of a new form of colonialism. Sadowski (2019) leads this debate, arguing that ‘we cannot assume data is always a commodity’ (p.2), instead presenting evidence that data operates in the same way as capital. From the literature, three truths emerge: (1) data is valuable, (2) data collection is pervasive and exerts significant influence over businesses and governance, and (3) data systems are marked by asymmetries akin to those within capitalism. These characteristics indicate that data functions as capital, generating value across multiple dimensions. Sadowski (2019, p.5) further identifies five ways in which data creates value: ‘(1) data is used to create value, (2) data is used to optimise systems, (3) data is used to manage and control things, (4) data is used to model probabilities, and (5) data is used to build things’. This view extends beyond academia; a data strategist from Oracle notably asserted that, ‘data is in fact a new kind of capital on par with financial capital’ (Sadowski, 2019, p.3). The idea of distinguishing forms of capital is not new, Bourdieu (1886, p.242) theorised cultural and social capital, arguing that something functions as capital when it holds actual or potential resource value. In this sense, some scholars have adopted the term ‘data capital’, recognising it as distinct from but deeply intertwined with economic capital.

However, if data is capital, then its extraction ‘mirrors processes of primitive accumulation or accumulation by dispossession’ (Thatcher, 2016, p.944). When individuals are not fairly compensated for the use of their data, the process becomes exploitative, exposing the dangers of surveillance capitalism. Vaidhyanathan (2011, p.3) describes this as ‘infrastructure imperialism’, where digital and financial infrastructures function as tools of control, much like land acquisition during colonial and postcolonial periods. By capitalist logic, surveillance capitalism can thus ‘represent hybrid colonisation through global system of finance and digital surveillance’ (Zulifquar, 2023, p.1247). This is evident in the proliferation of digital financial and social platforms across the Global South, often facilitated by international institutions such as the UN, which remains entrenched in liberal economic frameworks. The parallels with historical colonial banking practises are striking. During the colonial era, European powers established banks in the Global South to serve the economic interests of the colonisers rather than local populations, ensuring resource extraction, financial control, and dependency. The Standard Bank of British South Africa, for example, functioned as a mechanism of imperial financial dominance. Today, data extraction techniques mirror these colonial processes, embedding digital infrastructures that benefit corporate elites while reinforcing global inequities. The similarities are undeniable, and so too are the dangers.

Now, to briefly touch on contemporary issues, it is necessary to move beyond the current discourse on ethics, as at its core, surveillance capitalism dismantles privacy. Demanding privacy from the Big Other is akin to a Big Brother contestant asking not to be filmed; an inherent contradiction in a system built on data extraction. For instance, most tech companies use End-User License Agreements (EULAs), which function as ‘standard form or boilerplate contracts… generally applied to all users’ (Zamir, 2014, p.7). These contracts, often dense with jargon and legalese, assume what Williamson (1985, p.67) describes as the ‘conviction of contract utopia’, removing contractual agreements from their social context and reducing them to automated, impersonal processes. As a result, users frequently consent to terms they have neither read nor fully understood (Lanier, 2013, p.314). This dynamic underscores Street View Logic, as highlighted in Rahmani’s (2019) scholarly work. Google, in this context, adopts a ‘do first, act later’ approach, capturing and commodifying inhabited land without consent or concern. This not only reinforces severe power asymmetries but also underscores the fact that ‘suppression of privacy is at the heart of this business model’ (Srnicek, 2017, p.101).

Thus, contemporary scholars should instead critically engage with the democratic implications of surveillance capitalism. If such extensive data extraction and control occur under the guise of liberal freedom, one must consider the even more serve consequences in authoritarian regimes, where state power operates with even fewer constraints. As Zuboff (2015, p.7) warns, ‘democracy threatens surveillance revenues’, raising urgent concerns about the entanglement between surveillance capitalism and state power. Russia exemplifies this emerging relationship, where Sber, once merely a bank, now aspires to be ‘the main modernising force leading Russia’ (Østbø, 2021, p435). By merging data extraction techniques with the Russian states technocratic vision, Sber simultaneously profits while strengthening the regime. This symbiotic relationship enables both corporate and state surveillance, allowing Putin’s administration to amass vast amounts of data on its population. If the West has failed to contain surveillance capitalism within so-called democratic limits, the challenge becomes even more dire as these practises take root in authoritarian states. Surveillance scholars must, therefore, recognise the profound dangers of this accelerating convergence between corporate and state control.

To conclude, surveillance capitalism extends beyond economic exploitation, embedding new forms of digital imperialism and colonisation. As its reach expands into authoritarian regimes, the fusion of corporate data extraction with state surveillance raises urgent concerns. Without intervention or regulation, the erosion of privacy, autonomy and democracy will only accelerate.

Bibliography

Fine, B. and Saad-Filho, A. (2016) Marx’s Capital. Sixth edition. London, England: Pluto Press.

Foster, J.B. and McChesney, R.W. (2014) ‘Surveillance Capitalism: Monopoly-Finance Capital, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the Digital Age’, Monthly Review (New York. 1949), 66(3), pp. 1-. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-066-03-2014-07_1.

Garrett, P.M. (2022) ‘“Surveillance Capitalism, COVID-19 and Social Work”: A Note on Uncertain Future(s)’, The British Journal of Social Work, 52(3), pp. 1747–1764. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab099.

Janiewski, D.E. (2023) ‘Surveillance Capitalism in America ed. by Josh Lauer and Kenneth Lipartito (review)’, Technology and Culture, 64(1), pp. 230–232. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2023.0035.

Königs, P. (2024) ‘In Defense of “Surveillance Capitalism”’, Philosophy & Technology, 37(4), pp. 122-. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00804-1.

Lazzarato, M. (Maurizio) (2012) The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition. Translated by J.D. Jordan. South Pasadena, CA: Semiotexte.

Mason, P. (2019) Clear Bright Future: A Radical Defence of the Human Being. London: Allen Lane.

Ruder, S.-L. (2024) ‘The “terms and conditions” of surveillance capitalism: theorizing agricultural data policy and governance’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, pp. 1–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2024.2429480.

Sadowski, J. (2019) ‘When Data is Capital: Datafication, Accumulation, and Extraction’, Big Data & Society, 6(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549.

Srnicek, N. and De Sutter, L. (2017) Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Zuboff, S. (2015) ‘Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization’, Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), pp. 75–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5.

Zulfiqar, G.M. (2023) ‘Digital Financialization and Surveillance Capitalism in the Global South: The New Technologies of Empire’, Organization (London, England), 30(6), pp. 1246–1251. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231183033.

Østbø, J. (2021) ‘Hybrid Surveillance Capitalism: Sber’s Model for Russia’s Modernization’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 37(5), pp. 435–452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2021.1966216.