More on social media and socialism

Stowe Boyd says that I've gotten into a conflated muddle with thinking on why social media isn't socialism.

I disagree.

To Boyd's post, there's little "shared meritocratic ethos" in today's web; for example, I'm feeling a lot of heat around the idea of getting paid, e.g. Izea and Twply, not to mention Twitter phishing.

In contrast, Jon Burg gets straight to the point about why a complete shift of power to the people should and will not occur.

I wrote it before and I'll publish again - social media isn't socialism.

Socialism, from the wikipedia definition, describes a situation with (1) collective ownership of means of production and distribution along with (2) an egalitarian distribution of wealth.  

(1) Each participant chooses their own publishing tools and distribution channels.  Investing too heavily in a common system produces negative results, as pointed out by Steve Rubel describing Robert Scoble's diminished brand value.

(2) You and I may share content freely, but not for others to take credit for our thoughts and ideas.  If an individual consistently produces valuable content, that person should be rewarded, not ripped off.  Plagiarizers redistribute "wealth" by stealing from owners and claiming value as their own.

Individuals need incentive to participate.  Competition drives innovation.  Cooperation helps sub-groups succeed together.

Did I stutter?

Comments

[Moti Karmona]

I tend to agree,

The dictionary definition for socialism is: 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
(http://www.answers.com/topic/socialism)

Social Media isn't:
1. "owned collectively" - "individual" ownership isn't "collective" ownership -> we don't share our blogs ownership.
2. "centralized controlled" - not yet... :)

[Jay Deragon]

I would agree with you Kim. I call the current tip toward consumer participtation in everything Socialutions rather than Socialism

[Aaron Strout]

Peter - I'm chuckling out loud about the last line of your post. Priceless! For what it's worth, I would tend to agree with you and Stowe should know better. This feels a little like socialism because there's more sharing going on than corporations have been comfortable with in the past but this is the new reality. Oh, I might know a thing or two about socialism too having studied Soviet/Russian studies for 6 years in undergrad and grad school. ;)

Best,
Aaron | @astrout

[Stowe Boyd]

Hold on a second.

1. I am not advocating plagiarism.
2. Socialism does not imply plagiarism, just because as an idealized level there is collective ownership of the means of production, usually through state control. Plagiarism is no more likely in Sweden (a somewhat more socialist country than the US, at least until the present econolypse) than the US.
3. The unstated implication of Peter's metaphor is that plagiarism is based on socialism, when it is in fact based on theft.

That's part 1 of what I was trying to get across.

The second part is that web culture is unlikely to foster plagiarism, even though it happens. Peter seems to be thinking of some socialistic redistribution of wealth, or something, where ownership of writing would be thrown to the breezes.

It's just not a very good trope.

[Ari]

I have a bachelors in sociology, but I didn't learn anything about media, social or other.

Seems I said in a sentence what you didn't stutter in more. Thanks for letting me agree with you.

[Snow Vandemore]

In capitalism, the land, labor, capital and all other resources, are owned, operated and traded by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit...

Maybe this topic is a bit too heavy for a Nebraska farm wife to grasp completely, but for me, it appears to all boil down to the definitions of wealth and profit as it pertains to social media.

Perhaps I'm naive, but the farmer (or social media user) that consistently puts forth honest effort, is intelligent, uses common sense, and applies what he has learned this season to next year's crop will ultimately profit from his or her faithful diligence.

That sounds like capitalism to me.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

@snowvandemore

[Peter Kim]

Yes, exactly. And while quite a bit of sharing goes on in social media, that "ethos" doesn't give others the right to steal.

Here's an example of someone who doesn't understand:
http://www.slideshare.net/alihadi/social-media-prediction-2009-presentation/

His argument - it's not necessary to give attribution to the original source, because many websites have posted the information. That's someone who's confusing social media with socialism.

[Stefan Deak]

No, social media isn't socialism. And socialism isn't plagiarism. And plagiarism isn't an ideology. However it isn't an elbow or a cup of coffee either.

In the pursuit of comparing social media to political theories I believe Collin Duoma of Radical Trust to come the closest in comparing social media to libertarianism in Jon Burg's post.

The issue you are addressing on plagiarism is interesting and I think that an entirely new equilibrium will settle in time. IMHO we have far too many examples on how social media disrupts traditional business models to believe that plagiarism isn't part of the new game - for better or for worse.

I couldn't say.

[David Mattia]

You and I may share content freely, but not for others to take credit for our thoughts and ideas. If an individual consistently produces valuable content, that person should be rewarded, not ripped off. Plagiarizers redistribute "wealth" by stealing from owners and claiming value as their own.

The subject of social media and money are mutually exclusive if we step back far enough for perspective. What social media is telling us is that the experience right now is more about the dynamics of settling a social frontier. Despite a few crowded areas it is still a lot of wide open space. In the case of the digital frontier this is very misleading and that leads to frustration like those above. Every sharp edge cuts both ways however, and the potential negative is equally opportunistic in terms of finding like minded fields full of people to share stories and ideas around the campfire. Leave the money out of it and there is a marketer's paradise somewhere in that vision when people really start coming. Of course we deserve credit for our ideas but, out on the frontier, it is all about what you do with them that really matters. Social media is about the social trend toward specialization. Honor that as well as those you share stories with and we all benefit. Refuse a basic social convention and penalties will be developed. Most successful new towns got a sheriff. I have no idea what that will mean tomorrow but the social pattern is broad enough to be trusted.

[Account Deleted]

In my reply above I failed to use quotations of Peter's three sentences I used to frame my comment. Sorry Peter!
You and I may share content freely, but not for others to take credit for our thoughts and ideas.
If an individual consistently produces valuable content, that person should be rewarded, not
ripped off. Plagiarizers redistribute "wealth" by stealing from owners and claiming value as
their own.

[Steven Devijver]

I think that comparing 2008/09 to any ideology is misguided. If you look at all the ideologies that have taken root (capitalism, social capitalism, and communism) they're all about the role of the bourgeoisie in society, and how wealth gets distributed. On top of that, each ideology has a somewhat clear view on human beings, how societies should be organized, and where this leaves human beings.

What 2008/09 so far hasn't explained yet are:

* how should society be organized?
* how should wealth be distributed?
* how do we look at human beings?

Answers to these questions may not be far off, but they're in my understanding not available as of yet. Also, there's one ideology that hasn't taken root so far, yet doesn't seem to want to go away in the hearts and minds of people: anarchy.

Steven