#SMCQ13 Is social media the new socialism?
June 6, 2009 by Deborah Crooks
“Just like the ant-communist Red Scares of the early part of the century, Republicans today are throwing about ’socialism’ as the great ‘Blue Scare,’” noted Chris Heuer, during the Social Media Club Editorial Board’s weekly discussion.
The comment was inspired by one of the more compelling surveys of Social Media published in the most recent issue of Wired, called “The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society is Coming Online,” by Kevin Kelly, May 22, 2009. Given the heavy baggage that the term holds, we wonder if such a tag will help or hinder all that social media has to offer society. That said, if Social Media — with its distributed power, collaborative, communal aspects — isn’t socialism, what is it? And if it is the new socialism, how do we leave the worst of socialism’s reputation behind?
So we’re curious to know how you answer this weeks Question of the Week:
#SMCQ13 Is social media the new socialism?
We welcome your comments, posts & tweets. Tag: #SMCQ13
How to join the Social Media Clubs Question of the Week discussion: Our goal with the Question of the Week initiative is to create a truly collaborative conversation within and around the most up-to-the-minute issues affecting Social Media. Each week, the Social Media Club editorial board looks at trends, topics and news affecting social media during a Blogtalk Radio broadcast. During the call, the editorial board forms the question. This is where YOU come in: we’d love for you to post your thoughts on your blog, via Twitter or by commenting on the Social Media Club site. Please tag your blogs and posts with a hash tag, ‘#’, so we can track the conversation. For example, if you wrote a response to Social Media Club Question of the Week 13, please tag your post ‘#SMCQ13’ and we’ll be able to find it, track back, and link the post to the original post. Your answers will all be included in the weekly Conversation post & Blogtalk Radio broadcast review of the answers we received. We also invite you to call in to the shows to share your viewpoint. Instructions about how to call in will be given on this site by the end of each week. Thanks for joining the club!
It isn’t the new socialism. If anything, it’s the new expression of liberty, which is probably why Republicans are so afraid of it.
I do not believe social media has anything communist about it. Even if it did, it could peacefully co-exist with a capitalist society.
I do not believe that Republicans fear social media either. Here in Texas, Republican politicians are taking up social media. Even Governor Perry’s campaign will be having social media workshops this summer. If you have been on Twitter, you may have even seen the TCOT hashtag, which is Top Conservatives on Twitter.
Leaving aside the Republicans, who are actually embracing social media, the real question of whether social media is socialist or not can be addressed.
Socialism’s hallmark is government control of industry and other aspects of society. Our government would have to be in control of our activities and dictate them to some extent. In fact, social media’s ability to connect people for collaboration outside of the reach of government’s tentacles makes social media anti-socialist. Socialism cannot succeed where people are free to congregate and collaborate to make things happen without government involvement. Socialism, therefore, feels entitled to crack down on free speech and thought for the good of society.
Communism is a whole other ball of wax. Communism may have more in common with social media than socialism. In its pure form, communism may very well be possible in social media. It is perhaps best that social media is somewhat of a virtual environment because it fails miserably when we try it as free societies. Communism always results in socialism because you have to force buy-in from everybody for communism to work. Social media, however, allows those who are interested to opt-in to communal life. Thus, societal buy-in at large is not necessary, eliminating the need for centralized control of the public.
It would be an interesting experiment to see if a virtual society can be created and successfully run online with elections, legislation, town hall meetings, and such. Could we create a dual citizenship where we live in a capitalistic society but work in an online communist environment? Would human nature make virtual communism implode as it does in the real world?
Lets hear it for Shaine – good post – just because you use the term social with socialism and social media does mean they have anything in common and then to take a swipe at a political party – bad.
we desparately need at least 2 parties to keep things in check – the republicans right now have issues but the democrats had issues for quite a while.
Society run online is partly there now with the haves and have nots online.
I posted this on Chris’ FaceBook comment already but here’s my answer:
A friend of mine described socialism as the equal distribution of equity and capitalism as the equal distribution of opportunity. And of course communism as the equal distribution of misery. Depending on the Tribe it could be any of the above!
Most corporations and business people see it as a marketing medium, very few even understand the social value yet.
#SMCQ13 Are you running out of questions? Of course social media isn’t the new socialism, because all isms are outdated and stereotyped to begin with. However, if you want to say that social media creates opportunity for people who never could connect before to connect, I’d say it’s a big leveler of the playing field.
Which is why a certain class of people don’t want it. They don’t want a level playing field. They want the deck stacked in their favor. That’s why they want to develop a high speed Internet for themselves and a low speed for everyone else. It’s also why they’re afraid to use social media for its true value. When you’re used to controlling the talking points and along comes a new technology that no longer allows you to control the talking points, what do you do? You try to regain control. By any means possible. Divert everyone’s attention by calling it socialism then when you get them arguing about it you can sneak through the crowd and start fires at the exit points, call the fire department, create a crisis, offer the solution, look like a hero, and bamboozle them into electing your people again so you can steal the Internet.
These people haven’t changed. They’re just waiting for their next opportunity.
When I think of Socialism I think of keeping the masses at poverty level and brainwashing them into thinking it’s in their best interest…I don’t think social media has any connection with my definition of socialism. It may happen to be effective for communicating and it also so happens to be the way the more engaged “causes” are reaching their audience and spreading awareness, I think it’s created a more empowered audience and organization. It’s so rapidly changing and even if one subliminal message reached all of us it could not influence all of us. I think new media in fact encourages companies and people to be more competitive because they want to remain on the cutting edge of technology and the online trends so I think having a presence in social media creates that. Socialism discourages people to try harder and think outside the box which I think is the exact opposite of what new media is…if you don’t think outside the box, you won’t be on top remaining competitive. It’s my old Econ degree kicking into high gear while I’m posting this…fun stuff.
I do think new media helps to express so many individuals that otherwise wouldn’t get face time on television or on mainstream because they’re not apart of the handful of richest men that own every movie production company, television channel and magazine…I find the people that are not on mainstream are more credible in my eyes because I know they’re speaking from their hearts & minds vs. who is paying for a commercial spot. I agree with the above post by Shane who said, few understand the value yet…I think it may take years and that’s why I encourage those who do get it to dive deep because I expect in the coming years as companies and the big money realize there are places where they do not control the masses, they will start to get involved. I hope we can all sniff out the disingenuous ones more easily by then and hopefully we as savvy social media peeps can attach a hammer & sickle flag to them quickly.
Cooperation and Socialism are not synonyms. Old labels won’t help in new times.
Interesting responses so far – wondering if anyone actually bothered to read the Kevin Kelly article that inspired the question… very important to read it first as many of the comments are actually better addressed there.
I think unfortunately, it is not easy for anyone to strip away preconceived notions of the language we are using as no one so far has been able to see past the idea they have of what socialism is and what it isnt. Still grappling with this myself and seeking more input, please do share your thoughts and ideas on this question.
Coming from downunder, where compared to the US the term socialism isn’t in common use and/or have any ‘heavy baggage’, the question is a bit null.
So it wont affect us downunder.
I think that politics of the internet are – and have always been – closer to pure Anarchism than anything else. Socialism is mandatory, and based on coercion. Therefore, the analogy to the Net instantly falls apart.
Indeed the Net – and open-source projects in particular – illustrate beautifully the theory of “Mutual Aid” promoted by legendary Anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(politics)
According to Kropotkin when large groups of people are free to do as they please (as we are on the Internet), they will discover that they have more to gain from cooperation than from competition. Open-source is the perfect example of this. The programmers who work on a piece of massive software like Blender 3D aren’t just gaining satisfaction and brand cachet, they’re getting the software that they want to work with!
I agree that the “socialism” angle is pure sensationalism. Which is a pity, because the analogy to Anarchism is much more interesting.
Interesting angle Alex. I hadn’t thought of it that way. But I think you do have a point. The Internet is the least regulated part of our existence. Therefore, it isn’t socialism but more akin to anarchism, as you say. Anarchism and liberty are like opposite sides of the same coin. They go together in a certain sense. I’m not sure about your cooperation/competition thesis. I think there will always be an element of competition in a free system. But there will also be an increase in voluntary cooperation. I think they are nice compliments to each other, actually.
I agree, Allen … I don’t think anybody would want or expect competition to go away. Indeed, a healthy level of competition is necessary for freedom to exist, because it guarantees choices – and liberty, after all, is largely synonomous with “choice.” No choice = no freedom.
I’m not quite sure what you mean about liberty and anarchism being opposite sides of the same coin, though. Anarchism IS the political expression of liberty.
And you could just as well say liberty is the political expression of anarchism. Read LewRockwell.com for the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism in short essays.
Opposites are not necessarily in polarity. Heads and tails are flip sides. Not the same, but of the same value and of the same substance. Liberty requires a protector, but anarchism doesn’t. However, without individual liberty you cannot have anarchism. Therefore, there is a role for government. Too much of it, on the other hand, and you squelch both liberty and anarchism. So far we’ve managed to keep the Internet a welcome playing field of freedom. How much longer can it last?