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?

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.

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.

So it wont affect us downunder.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Society run online is partly there now with the haves and have nots online.

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?