A New Socialism? Not So Fast
June 17, 2009 by SocProf and tagged Culture, Economy, Global Governance, Globalization, Ideologies, Networks, Social Change, Social Movements, Social Privilege, Social Theory, Sociology, Technology
I tend to be skeptical of claims of "the end of this (history / ideology /society / whatever)" or the emergence of the great new thing as epochal shift. So, are we seeing the rise of Digital Socialism?
So, it’s not socialism, then? Actually, what Kevin Kelly files under the banner of digital socialism are trends that have been identified in a variety of settings and domains: decentralization, deterritorialization, networking, individualization and the rise of what Arjun Appadurai called scapes or what Zygmunt Bauman calls liquidity as part of globalization.
To bolster his case, Kelly points to the variety of technologies, platforms and projects that have involved massive involvement of sharing and collaboration from a lot of unpaid people. Think Wikipedia (and the multiplicity of wikis in general), Flickr, Youtube, Digg or Facebook. Using these platforms (that operate with still some degree of centralization from core groups… digital politburos, so to speak), users engage in a variety of projects and interactions. In many cases, this involves real work that is done for free and enjoyed by millions, also for free.
Of course, this summary of socialism is misleading and inaccurate and this is one of the major problems with the article, its conceptual sloppiness in mixing socialism, communism, politics, economics, culture, all with a touch of technological determinism. And as you see above, even though Kelly asserts that digital socialism is still roughly confined to economics and culture, there is a lot that relates to governance and polity. And incidentally, the Huffington Post is a large media outlet, not a haven of just "passionate opinions" as there is censorship there when some authors don’t toe the line.
And can we ban "third way" from our analyses from now on? Seriously?
Well, such ban would be nice if it did not involve strawmen-type characterization and false dichotomies. To reduce the alternative to free-market individualism (I guess we can ignore the predominance of transnational corporations and that of the financial capitalism) and centralized authority (governance and polity again… and we can forget about the Scandinavian social democracies) is to ignore the shades of grey that capitalism and socialism have taken as they translated into national systems.
And to provide digital socialism as the third way is also to ignore the major actors of global governance (See David Held’s work) and state-led denationalization (see Saskia Sassen) that have been central to creating the borderless world in which digital socialism can thrive.
And there is another aspect missing from this: who gets to participate and enjoy the bounty of digital socialism? Kelly is prompt to bury social class issues (we are all equal in the eyes of Wikipedia and Flickr) but the global stratification system is well-entranched and shows no signs of disappearing. The digital socialists are akin to Leslie Sklair’s transnational capitalist class and the global digital divide is alive and well. Certainly, Kiva makes such a connection between the ridges of the divide but as the image in my previous post shows, a great deal of digital activity is still commerce even though the nature of the goods exchanged may have evolved (see liquid capitalism).
So, the Iranian Revolution might be twittered, social movements may use ICTs in many different ways and causewiring may involve a variety of groups and projects but it remains to be seen whether this is truly the epochal shift that some think it is.
Posted in Culture, Economy, Global Governance, Globalization, Networks, Social Change, Social Movements, Social Privilege, Social Theory, Sociology, Technology | 5 Comments »
June 18th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Nothing stupider than the title “the end of history” (except maybe Dow 36,000). The moment I heard it, I knew the guy, whatever his reputation, was fundamentally a moron.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Kinda like Tom Friedman, huh?
June 21st, 2009 at 8:38 am
Basically he’s just recycling old liberal ideas (about pluralism, consumer ‘sovereignty,’ active audiences, etc, etc). He happens to emphasize technologies — whereas others foreground markets, government, etc; yet, the views all seem to be basically the same — in that all of those points of view seem to take for granted (in some ways, and to some extent) capitalism, the liberal government, the massifying media and such.
The U.S. (his tacit focal point) always was supposed to be the land of free democracy.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:41 am
I recommend Vincent Mosco’s very relevant book The Digital Sublime.
(He’s a Sociologist who has a very prominent place in the Canadian Media & Communications field.)
There certainly are other relevant books about digital hype (e.g. books by Matellart), but Mosco’s text would be my first recommendation.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
Thanks, Toban.