In the current issue of Wired, Kevin Kelly writes that socialism is coming back in a big way: on the web.
Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.
From actions as simple as registering pictures or content through Creative Commons to the collaboration and free distribution of open-source projects like Wikipedia or Plone, Kelly sees the signs of a new consciousness developing in the global digital age. With this change in mindset comes a reimagining of the old debates between individualism and collectivism.
Rather than viewing technological socialism as one side of a zero-sum trade-off between free-market individualism and centralized authority, it can be seen as a cultural OS that elevates both the individual and the group at once. The largely unarticulated but intuitively understood goal of communitarian technology is this: to maximize both individual autonomy and the power of people working together. Thus, digital socialism can be viewed as a third way that renders irrelevant the old debates.
Bora Zivcovic has argued much the same thing, but in the area of politics rather than economics. Writing at A Blog Around the Clock he considers the power of this new culture for political collaboration and engagement.
Fast-forward another 10 years or so. Instead of 50%, the full 100% of Americans have online access. Several years of experience in deciding elections, as well as specific political issues, will energize the population. Instead of apathy due to dis-illusionment with the process, there will be millions of people aware that they CAN make a difference. Millions of people will log in every day and voice their opinions about a piece of legislation and woe to the Congressman who votes against the will of his constituents. So, what are the politicans for, if they are forced to listen to their constituents all the time. They will become more and more dispensible, as the system shifts from representative towards direct democracy. This is the first time in history when the technology allows the entire population to participate in every decision, at every level of government.
What remains to be seen is if the online revolution continues to be free and open or ends up, like television and radio before it, as a tool for celebrity gossip and entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator. However, unlike those two other mediums, web interaction requires a much lower threshold for involvement. Pirate TV or radio stations are expensive to set up and maintain and their range is limited. Now, any kid with a used computer, a phone line and some imagination can involve themselves in a new kind of economy, a new politics, a new culture. Call it Culture 2.0. Reducing hierarchy where it’s illegitimate. Emphasizing collaboration rather than ownership. Freeware apps instead of proprietary software. The signs of a new way of thinking about our role as workers, citizens and consumers may be all around us if we simply stop to notice it.
At nearly every turn, the power of sharing, cooperation, collaboration, openness, free pricing, and transparency has proven to be more practical than we capitalists thought possible. Each time we try it, we find that the power of the new socialism is bigger than we imagined.
We underestimate the power of our tools to reshape our minds. Did we really believe we could collaboratively build and inhabit virtual worlds all day, every day, and not have it affect our perspective? The force of online socialism is growing. Its dynamic is spreading beyond electrons—perhaps into elections.
Last updated:
Friday, 29 May
2009 - 17:39 UTC
Although theoretically appealing, I’m sure that government would virtually cease to function if millions of people were logging in to comment on legislation every day. Direct democracy has produced some wonderful things in CA, but the price has been day-to-day operational gridlock.
But I don’t think the problem of overwhelming multi-threaded conversation affecting each legislative decision will materialize anyway because there are not millions out there with enough passion, interest and dedication to participate fully in government minutia. Just because activation barriers to commenting in general may diminish, this doesn’t mean that the public will suddenly transcend Dancing With the Stars and turn on C-SPAN…
Now, any kid with a used computer, a phone line and some imagination can involve themselves in a new kind of economy, a new politics, a new culture.
As long as they don’t say anything even potentially libellious — or at least seen to be potentially libellious by corporate lawyers.
+1 RG!!!!
I don’t know about the “new” divide. The whole Usenet culture was precisely about these values. This whole bucket of cold water about what can be considered libel, and previous buckets that have been thrown around by which I personally had not been yet splashed, about which sites are accessible to you through your provider in your given country, make me rather pessimistic about the long run.
But I will side with the dreamers and the optimists every time.
@Heather: I think the new openness of the internet will be precisely what will bring the UK’s ridiculous libel laws down. People aren’t going to tolerate that kind of violation to their right of free expression. The US has made it clear that they won’t honor anything considered libelous in England.
Political pundits are feeling the heat too. Check out Glenn Greenwald’s latest column at Salon.com.
@Noah: Actually, I think the “operational gridlock” as you call it may be healthy. Like many people I was appalled at Prop. 8 for outlawing gay marriage, but I think the courts made a wise decision to let it stand. Now it’s up to people to put their own initiative on the ballot and strip Prop. 8 democratically. It’s messy, inefficient and often frustrating. But, hey, so is creating social policy in changing times. Prop. 8 will be overthrown relatively soon and it will be nice if it’s done with the ballot box rather than in a courtroom.