So I have been meaning to comment on Bridger's presentation last week. (By the way, I was impressed with the boldness of your argument and your use of power point. Fj would be proud.) There were a few things I didn't quite agree with. One of the main claims that didn't ring true for me was the claim that the internet is Communist. The argument presented was that since everyone pays the same for it, it must be communist, but the fact that anyone pays at all means that the internet is inherently capitalist. The internet is a commodity because we assign it a monetary value.
Content may be free (only if we have complete net neutrality--which is at the mercy of large corporate service providers), but even then there are things that we can and cannot access. What about the internet providers? They get the money. They have the power (depending upon court rulings) to control the content that can be made accessible without increased charges for content providers.
I find the claim to be valid as it pertains to some types of content creation, such as memes. The internet in some ways undoes the commodification of art, because it has become something that people share with one another. Copyright plays a role in maintaining that commodification, but things like creative commons and the public domain are far more free. I still wonder, though, through content-sharing online, do we really get away from the social nature of art? And we still have to deal with the monetary implications of youtube clips going viral and leading to increased advertising.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJacque: I think you're right. However, even if you weren't right, the Marxist argument as a whole is still framed in the context of Marx's linear view of history, which honestly is pretty dubious. (Given Marx was such a hardcore empiricist, it's a bit ironic that there's so little empirical evidence in support of his actual thesis.)
ReplyDeleteBut for the sake of argument, in terms of the linear progression, I actually gave a few arguments for why the internet could be seen as communistic in addition to (1), which you mentioned. Those were:
1. Everyone pays the same for it
2. Everyone has (free, in many places) access to it
3. There is no class
4. There is no state
5. It's structured around common ownership
I think you make a good point about (1). In light of the other four arguments, I think it would make more sense, then (if we're to take Marx's linear perspective seriously) to view the internet as evidence of a state that is either (a) essentially capitalist and becoming socialist or (b) essentially socialist and becoming communist. From this perspective, (b) would be difficult to argue for. (a) would not.
With that being said, I don't buy Marx's perspective to begin with; it makes for an interesting critique, but it lacks any real empirical support to justify its assumptions. I think followers of Marx tend to be less concerned with Marx's overall historical project, and more concerned with the interesting socio-economic critiques that viewing cultures and artifacts though a Marxist lens can tend to provide. I would imagine that theorists like Horkheimer or Adorno would take a similar route to your own, and look at the internet as a means to capitalist control, rather than as a hopeful indication of the utopian end-times having arrived, in contrast to Marx himself.
In response to Jacque: I would not only agree that the internet is maybe more limited than it seems, but expand on that: Consider countries like China which actually limit what can be accessed on the internet. In addition, internet security is still developing, and I think we may find that as internet security becomes more concrete, so will internet economics.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Bridger: I actually think there is a sort of "class structure" on the internet; I just don't think it is based (solely) on money.
Consider:
A. The monopoly of Google over the internet.
B. The social hierarchy of the internet. Yes, it's not a monetary hierarchy, but there are definitely high school- like groups established: the gamers, the trolls, the youtube stars, the youtube wannabes.... etc. Even within those groups there are hierarchies. Consider gaming, for example. There are the different kinds of gamers: MMORPG (like World of Warcraft), text-based gamers, flashgamers, etc. Then within those games, there are major hierarchies. Take MMORPGs: there are the VIP players (a money-based distinction, as these players have to pay for their accounts), average players (sort of the middle class?), Role-Play based players, and "noobs"-- the "lower class" who are often trolled or otherwise mistreated-- and some of whom never rise above their class because they are trolls themselves and don't learn proper internet etiquette due to how badly they are treated.
I think there are these sorts of groups in every internet community, signifying an inability to mesh into the sort of classless community Marxism imagines.
Bridger, I appreciate your response. I am intrigued with the thought that the internet itself could be a non-capitalist thing that people are trying to contain using capitalism. (and failing?) When it comes to copyright most people are living against the law. So I could be sold to that extent and that seems like the point you were making.
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking that since blogs and youtube are definitely aimed at getting attention, it still has the motivation of pleasure industry like Horkheimer and Adorno (which you mentioned in your comment, Bridger). Companies control it, but to some extent, everyone is trying to sell themselves online, perhaps hoping to make it big.
You make an interesting point about class structure and hierarchy, Caitlin. It would be interesting to see how the external class system compares with the external class system. For example, are the VP gamers such because they are low class and spend their free time on the internet. The creation of a virtual self could be taken as a bourgeois method of helping the low class maintain their satisfaction with the false consciousness.
I find the internet to actually be the best example of free market that exists. Censorship is only beginning to creep in, and black market/feeding off of and profiting from trends has no greater example than going viral. It makes the strong and elite (who can pay for the best access) stronger, and the weak Other (my relatives who can't afford internet), weaker by exclusion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think the internet inhabits both extremes of anarchy and authoritarianism. Wikileaks demonstrated that the potential for an international yard sale or total exposure is possible. However, like I mentioned in class, the deals that are made between the powerhouses like Google and Facebook are narrowing the internet to look a lot like companies and business before the trust break up of the gilded age.
I think both of these scenarios, like Jacque said, allows for the ideas of Horkheimer and Adorno to be lived out dangerously.
You have a great point, Jacquie. And on that note: if the internet is supporting capitalism and that money is going to the providers, what about advertisement cash? Huge companies like Google and Amazon are sitting pretty, making tons of moolah off the "socializing" middle class. So, really, the middle class that is pushing the lower and upper classes into the fringes is actually supporting the fat cats at the top.
ReplyDeleteAnd Caitlin: wonderful point. How many people on Facebook looked down on MySpacers? What about the Yahoo vs. Google search wars? The Internet is oddly creating a new hierarchy while making the old one escapable. You're a geek in the real world, but on that WoW forum, you are the troll king, dealing death and punishment to any elf that dares tread your territory. Sure, once you log off you're back to being the nerdy-kid, but there is still that (cyber)social mobility...
Basically: you make a fascinating point, Bridger (and a fantastic lecturer, btw); the Internet is just such a malleable, unidentifiable mass of...The Blob (think carnivorous, pink alien goo from the 1950's, 70's, and 80's) that it's too hard to pin it down without being eaten, and way too easy to view it from a plethora of numerous, numerous perspectives.
Essentially: Yay for inexhaustible interpretation!