HISTORICAL PARALLELS OF ELITE-CONTROLLED SYSTEMS

The Wealthy Elite

In 1933, Carl von Ossietzky, a German journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was arrested for exposing Germany's secret rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. His writings were tracked through the Reich Central Office for Combating Press and Literature Harmful to National Socialism, which monitored newspapers, personal correspondence, and radio broadcasts - a surveillance system that would seem primitive compared to today's technology. 

Carl von Ossietzky

In 2024, a single AI system can simultaneously analyze billions of messages, posts, and digital interactions, flagging "concerning" patterns with extraordinary precision. 

This evolution in surveillance capability is very similar to another transformation in power concentration.

On a crisp morning in 1872, a small group of oil refiners gathered in John D. Rockefeller's Cleveland office. By afternoon's end, they had signed away their businesses to Standard Oil, joining what would become the most powerful monopoly in American history. Rockefeller's company would eventually control 90% of America's oil production, holding unprecedented power over the nation's economy. 

Today, a similar concentration of power is emerging in the digital age. Just three companies - Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI - control the most advanced AI models, processing billions of interactions daily and shaping everything from information access to economic opportunities. 

These similar histories - of surveillance and economic control - reveal a persistent pattern: when revolutionary technologies emerge, whether in oil refinement or artificial intelligence, power tends to concentrate in the hands of a few. And that concentration of power often finds a way to manipulate, oppress, or marginalize segments of society for the interests of a few.

It’s a glimpse into the darker side of human nature. While the tools of control have changed, the basic patterns of power and influence remain the same. As artificial intelligence reshapes our world, these historical parallels offer both warnings and lessons about how technological power, when concentrated in the hands of elites, can fundamentally transform society. 

The Gilded Age: Economic Concentration as a Tool for Control 

The Gilded Age (late 19th to early 20th century) saw the rise of "robber barons" such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt. These industrialists achieved immense wealth and influence by monopolizing essential industries: oil, steel, and railroads, respectively. The era was characterized by profound wealth inequality, with a tiny fraction of society accumulating vast riches while the working class faced brutal labor conditions, long hours, and minimal pay. This disparity allowed the elite to shape politics and public opinion through direct lobbying and control over major media outlets. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, for example, controlling approximately 90% of U.S. oil production and distribution at its peak, set prices and policies that favored his interests over consumers and small businesses. 

In the context of AI, a similar economic concentration is visible today among tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Meta, which collect vast amounts of data and create proprietary AI systems designed for monitoring and surveillance, for predictive analytics (the use of data, statistics, and machine learning to predict future events or opportunities), and targeted advertising (the practice of displaying ads to specific groups based on their interests, demographics, and behavior). 

Their influence over digital ecosystems (the interconnected networks of technology, data, partners, and customers) enables them to control not only commerce, but also social behavior and political dialog. 

If AI algorithms continue to be used primarily to maximize profit without proper or powerful ethical checks, we may face an economic and informational monopoly that benefits a small, select group while disregarding the needs of the majority. 

Nazi Germany: Propaganda and the Control of Public Perception 

The rise of Nazi Germany provides a direct example of how concentrated power can manipulate media and technology to reinforce a regime's narrative. The Nazi party, under Hitler's leadership, used propaganda extensively to build a sense of unity among Germans while demonizing those considered "outsiders" or "enemies" of the state. A central component of this strategy was the concept of "blood purity" and the deliberate exclusion of certain groups through carefully crafted language. This rhetoric of division and "blood" contamination has occasionally resurfaced in modern political discourse, most notably in Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign statements about immigrants "poisoning the blood of our country" - language that drew immediate historical comparisons and concern from scholars of authoritarianism.

Key to the Nazi propaganda effort was Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, who oversaw the dissemination of state-approved messaging in newspapers, films, and speeches. The Nazis controlled all aspects of German media, ensuring that only government-approved narratives reached the public. 

Today's AI-powered social media platforms demonstrate similar capabilities to shape public opinion through selective content promotion. Recommendation algorithms that optimize for engagement (AI chosen content that users are likely to respond to), can inadvertently amplify extreme views, polarizing users. With a few tech corporations, including X (formerly Twitter), Meta, and TikTok, controlling global information streams, they hold unique power over what information reaches billions.

This digital control extends beyond mere content distribution - it enables complete surveillance and behavior prediction at a scale that would have been unimaginable during the 1930s. It could allow elites to use AI to reinforce their narratives, especially if the governments they support and work with decide to regulate opposing views.

Modern-Day Risks: AI = Control 

AI introduces capabilities that past regimes could only dream of. Surveillance technology and predictive policing systems, backed by vast data networks, can observe, analyze, and categorize citizens in real time. In the past, controlling a population required direct force or elaborate espionage networks. With AI, these processes can be automated and scaled to vast populations, permitting forms of control previously unimaginable. 

In China, the government’s AI-powered Social Credit System monitors and controls citizens’ behavior on a massive scale, assigning social scores based on actions ranging from debt repayment to social interactions. This system enforces a behavioral standard that discourages dissent and nonconformity, effectively automating social control. From tracking instances of jaywalking to social media activity, it gathers a complete profile for each individual, showing how modern technology can be used to manage and influence an entire population.

This real-world example shows how historical methods of control have evolved into something more sophisticated and pervasive. While the Nazi regime relied on human networks to gather intelligence and suppress dissent, today's AI systems can automatically identify and flag "concerning" behavior patterns across entire populations. A person's political leanings, social connections, and potential for dissent can be predicted through their digital footprint - from shopping habits to location data to social media interactions. This capability makes modern surveillance both more efficient and more difficult to evade than its historical counterparts.

A Possible Scenario 

Let's consider the government decides to use AI to track dissident behavior, be they protesters, journalists or mere political opponents. An AI program could analyze social media patterns to predict who might protest or criticize government policies, identifying potential dissenters early. If such surveillance capabilities were available to authoritarian-leaning governments or even corporations, they could restrict or prevent uprisings or revolts before they begin, much like how the Nazi party suppressed oppositional groups. 

Global Consequences 

China's model could set a precedent for other authoritarian regimes looking to use AI for population control, and even democracies might adopt similar frameworks under the guise of 'national security.' China is already exporting its AI-driven surveillance technology globally, and in Western democracies, comparable capabilities are seen through corporate data collection and government surveillance initiatives, though often framed differently.

The Path Forward: Preventing Digital Authoritarianism 

AI’s potential for control doesn’t guarantee it will be misused. However, without clear ethical frameworks and transparent policies, it is possible for elites to wield AI in ways that reinforce inequality and suppress dissent. History shows that when unchecked power and limited oversight come together, the result is often exploitation of the majority for the benefit of the few. 

The convergence of AI capabilities with concentrated power presents risks that exceed those of previous eras. Unlike the physical infrastructure of the Gilded Age or the propaganda machinery of Nazi Germany, AI systems can simultaneously monitor billions of people while adapting their control mechanisms in real-time. 

Nevertheless, this future is not inevitable. Specific steps can be taken to prevent the misuse of AI for social control: 

1. Democratic Oversight: Demand the establishment of independent bodies with real power to audit AI systems and their applications, particularly in surveillance and social scoring contexts.

 2. Data Rights: Strengthen individual privacy protections and give people genuine control over their personal data, including the right to opt out of national and even corporate surveillance systems. 

3. Technical Transparency: Require AI systems that affect public life to be open to scrutiny, with documented accountability for their decisions and impacts. 

4. Economic Distribution: The public must demand policies that ensure AI's benefits are shared broadly across society, preventing the concentration of both technological and economic power. 

5. Education and Awareness: Build public understanding of AI systems and their potential impacts, enabling informed civic participation in shaping AI governance. 

Once again, let's not forget that when power becomes too concentrated - whether in the hands of industrial barons, authoritarian regimes, or modern tech giants - the majority often suffers. At the same time, history has taught us that informed and organized societies can successfully resist and reform oppressive systems. The challenge of our time is to recognize these authoritarian patterns in their modern forms and act decisively to ensure AI serves the many rather than permitting the few to control them.

Thanks for reading. Abrazos.

Diego Rojas