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.
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.
I like the pic and have long hoped for a everyone to just leave me the fuck alone.
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.
#11, oh, health services is definitely a market, albeit a highly manipulated one.
#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.
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.,