The frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.
Communal aspects of digital culture run deep and wide. Wikipedia is just one remarkable example of an emerging collectivism—and not just Wikipedia but wikiness at large. Ward Cunningham, who invented the first collaborative Web page in 1994, tracks nearly 150 wiki engines today, each powering myriad sites. Wetpaint, launched just three years ago, hosts more than 1 million communal efforts. Widespread adoption of the share-friendly Creative Commons alternative copyright license and the rise of ubiquitous file-sharing are two more steps in this shift. Mushrooming collaborative sites like Digg, StumbleUpon, the Hype Machine, and Twine have added weight to this great upheaval. Nearly every day another startup proudly heralds a new way to harness community action. These developments suggest a steady move toward a sort of socialism uniquely tuned for a networked world.
We’re not talking about your grandfather’s socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government—for now.
[...]
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.
[...]
When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it’s not unreasonable to call that socialism.
“When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it’s not unreasonable to call that socialism.” //// Uhmmm, yea – - – - but====thats not the definition of socialism at all. So other than being totally wrong, … sure.
In short, there are no “goods” involved and there is no “ownership” and there is no government activity.
As Mark Twain famously said: “There is a big difference between Fire and Fire Flies.” Same deal here. Just because a few words appear in two different paragraphs, doesn’t mean the same issues are being discussed.
Collective content is only as good as the average. Which is why works of geniousness are from individuals.
Always a chuckle to see Americans convinced they have to have invented absolutely everything. Yawn.
#1: Wrong:
- The people own the computers and software (means of production)
- The “goods” are ideas, software, music & videos, etc.
- No need for government involvement. Definition from one source (lots of others say the same): “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”
#1, bobbo, exactly.
Socialism is based on the idea that the state is best at achieving the most efficient allocation of resources, and so should be put in control over them. This is just a bunch of individuals spontaneously coming together in cooperation, and is definitely more similar to a market system than a socialist one.
Err…, Uncle Dave, “the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively” means that the group as a whole, the collective, owns the capital. When you say that “the people own the computers and software (means of production)”, what this reflects in the real world is the individuals each own their computers, not that the group as a whole collectively share in the ownership.
Mere collaboration is not the same as the collectivism that is at the heart of socialism given in the definition that you site. There are aspects of the collaborative nature of the net that are somewhat like collectivism or socialism, specifically, the “goods” in terms of the information, idea and expressions of those ideas when they are freely distributed are treated as if they are collectively owned. In some cases, they are, in others they are individually owned but licensed for free use.
“Socialism” is fast becoming semantically empty as folk use it as an slur and accusation aimed at anyone whose motives can be described as anything short of purely selfish.
You might as well say that the New Fangled “United States of America” of 100+ years ago was socialist because it claimed that the ultimate source of political power was “We, the People”, a clearly collectivist notion, and that but pooling some number of resources, responsibilities, and powers, the several states were forming a collective.
#7: That’s why the author said, “a revised version of socialism”
There’s theory and then there’s practice.
Marx’s view and definition of socialism is pretty much irrelevant today. Certain core concepts remain, but implementation and what all constitutes ‘socialism’ has to change to have any meaning and connection at all in today’s world. Just as ‘capitalism’, especially in the US, isn’t what it once was.
I guess it depends on whether you are a purist or not in the definition. ‘Pure’ socialism, even in Marx’s time, was a fantasy because it is anti human nature. Even in instances where it was tried, the real world required changes to make it work, to the highly limited extent that it did.
In a sense, I suppose the author was looking at the web and fitting some of the concepts of Socialism onto what he saw. It looks like Socialism, sort of, so let’s call it that.
I like the pic and have long hoped for a everyone to just leave me the fuck alone.
#7, “pure” socialism doesn’t work because the premise is fundamentally flawed. It has never been the shown that a centrally managed economy can process the nearly infinite amount of information between producers and consumers that a competitive market system can through the price mechanism, to produce any sort of efficient outcome in the long-run. And certainly not one where the variety of goods goes significantly beyond having just one type of each to choose from. The best a truly socialist system could ever hope for is some success in directing very narrow segments of the economy.
But none of that is particularly important because, as bobbo originally pointed out, this has NOTHING to do with socialism. Socialism “works” through centralization, all of these web technologies mentioned are examples of extreme decentralization.
I thought fire fly was wrong but couldn’t remember: Lightning and Lightning Bug.
Well Unc Dave==you are right that the only difference between any two things is the intelligence and imagination it takes to see it.
Why not call the social networking aspects of the WWW a seething cauldron of promiscuous perverts exchanging Precious Bodily Fluids which can only result in pandemics such as the current Swine Flu?
It only depends on whether or not you are a purist on what words mean, and after all, what we think with is only words.
#9–SL==excellent comment. Made me think of thats exactly why “healtcare” should be socialized===because it really isn’t sensitive to price controls. Other definitional elements of a free market don’t apply either, but when you are sick, you will pay everything to be cured==ie, no market at all so socialism should have a good chance at providing the best societal service right there.
#11, oh, health services is definitely a market, albeit a highly manipulated one.
#9: The personal tools (iPods, computers, etc) are decentralized, but they connect people to websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc which do centralize their activities. Everyone can go to webpages on it and add their contributions which everyone benefits or partakes of. It’s analogous to farmers with their fields taking their grain to a city’s storehouse where it is mixed together and everyone shares from it.
Socialism ultimately fails because it requires humans to go against their nature which is inherently selfish. That’s why capitalism and greed work so well.
#10: Since you wish to ignore the author’s “revised version of socialism” line, then based on your purist requirement, there is not and never has been a Socialist society or group or anything other than theory. I would suggest you contact countries and groups who think they are socialist and tell them to stop using the word because they aren’t following to the letter what Marx wrote about.
Regarding socialism as used here:
In the words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
#13–Unc Dave==I think arguing by analogy is an excellent exercise, but only when it reveals, demonstrates, teaches something that is difficult to obtain straight on.
Why does the author want to analogize twitter to socialism? Its just plain stupid. You/we gain NOTHING from the exercise. As SL said better than I, and thinking about it some more, twitter is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY and pretty obviously allows people to fulfill some need in them that is entirely in their nature==to communicate, to talk, to share ideas.
The more insightful put less kneejerk worthy analogy would be “why twitter is NOT SOCIALISM” except no one is making that argument.
Do you really think I should ask Sweden to change the name of their governmental/economic system??? Hah, hah. Yaah sure!!!! Note: I made no demand or comment for purist approaches, but that doesn’t mean I support “opposite world” either.
In that vein: “goods” are NOT SERVICES which is why there are two different words to cover the difference between solid objects and innate ideas. Not that I’m a purist about it.
#15, goods are not services
While technically true, the difference isn’t too significant from the standpoint of the consumer. Both required factor inputs and hopefully satisfy some market demand.
Hmmmm. Twitter…..
Poops all come from individual buttholes. But you put them all in one place you can make a hell of a big pile.
“Digital Socialism” is sometimes called FREE SPEECH, with low barriers to entry (no need to own a printing press, newspaper, or broadcast license) It SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THE REDS, and could be the begining of a remedy to THE CORPORATE FASCISM THAT CONTROLS “THE WEST” !!! (Remember that Mussoulini called FASCISM the combination of Corporate and State Power into one…)
I posted the link from the Wired article on Facebook two days ago…
The internet was founded on hippie principles. (Ever wonder why San Francisco area is the home to so many internet companies) It’s the tie-dyed Whole Earth “Well” sort of place. Of course, once the “suits” smelled money, they came running. The history of the net (in a nutshell) is the story of the struggle between the two.
Yes, the internet was founded by hippies, buit it didn’t become useful until it made money.,