ARCHIVES: The Internet and Social Activism
Originally posted: April 4, 2007
Based on Marx’s theory of historical materialism, the 19th century conception of social conflict can be adapted to consider 21st century technologies and the new relations to the means of production. This is especially apparent when considering the rise of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The computer, and particularly the Internet, has played an integral role in the advance of capitalism. It has become a revolutionized technology in the market economy. Social movements, which oppose the advanced capitalist agenda, and use that very technology to mobilize against it, are an example of how the means of production alter social relations within society.
As more and more people get online and share their experiences, an emergent social context is arising; the pervasive use of ICTs is facilitating an emergent global collective consciousness. ICTs have created a social context that diminishes economic determinism and is in a constant state of revolution. It is important to note here that in referring to revolution, I am framing the concept under the assumption that technology is in a constant state of revolution, therefore the social relations within society are also in a constant state of revolution.
The history of social movements parallels the rise of international government organizations in the postmodern era (Smith & Smythe 2003:182). The advance of Fordism in postwar America had mainstreamed the working class identity. Fordism was a form of capitalist hegemony that was accomplished by the combination of Taylorism and the Keynesian welfare state. Under Fordism, capital and organized labour joined forces. The threat of “labour radicalism” was thus subdued by increasing the wages of the skilled white male and offering substantial benefits packages (Vogel 2003:21). Additionally, the development of the welfare state allowed for increased social control over the marginalized groups of society. According to sociologist Donna Vogel (2003), it was out of this context that social and political dissent emerged in the 1960’s; “New social movements were both a symptom and a cause of the collapse of Fordism”(21).
The 1960’s were also the dawn of the information age. Mass media was having an enormous influence in the cultural realm. There was television in every suburban household broadcasting a rapidly changing society; from the violent civil rights protests to the Vietnam War to man walking on the moon. Information was being disseminated at a rate faster than ever before, and this was all before the advent of the home computer. As investment in computer technology began to increase, the personal computer no longer seemed to be an invention from a science fiction novel.
For those interested in the movement towards universal social justice, the more information assimilated, the more critical they became. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were forming at all levels of society, bound by passion for their causes, not exclusively by economic status. In 1969, Canadian sociologist T.B. Bottomore wrote about the “end of ideology”: “…the great nineteenth century ideologies which divided societies internally have developed cracks and appear to be crumbling, and they no longer exercise anything like their former sway over the minds of social critics” (14).
From the 1960’s to the 1980’s social movements were becoming more diverse and divided. Civil rights, feminism, education criticism, the yippee movement, hippies, beatniks, anti-nuke, and environmental groups were all active movements that were gaining momentum and actually yielding political results. Some believed that many of the new social movements emerging were based on personal judgments and were a threat to the overall solidarity of any particular ideology
“…the critics of whatever social order they are confronting no longer see one big social problem, for which there is one big solution. Instead, they see a succession of more or less unique situations, each of which requires the critic to take a moral stand, to commit himself, but only with respect to that particular situation. There is no rule for dealing with all situations. Our age, therefore is certainly an age of criticism, but also one of exceptional confusion and disarray” (Bottomore 1969:14).
However, this assessment is only valid under the assumption that the varieties of criticisms are not connected.
As the global market economy expanded into all corners of the planet, it was becoming evident that there were dominant “enemies” of social justice emerging. Dieter Rucht addresses this issue in his article The Transnationalization of Social Movements: Trends, Causes, Problems:
“In spite of this thematic specialization, most groups still keep a sense that they are part of a broader movement with which they share common values and political perceptions. Many groups, though they are not necessarily bluntly anti-capitalist and/or anti-statist in their nature, believe that some of the problems they are addressing are a by-product of an overriding and uncontrolled search for economic profit and/or political power” (212).
The search for economic profit and political power was affecting all nations, not just industrialized ones. In the 1990’s, corporate mergers and transnational corporations were increasing and began to compete with nation-states for resource access. It was reported in 2001 that two hundred corporations controlled 28 percent of the global economy (Mander 2001:40).
Marx made reference to the rise of global market in The Communist Manifesto:
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole face of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere… it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old, established industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries… that no longer work with indigenous raw material, but material drawn from the remotest regions, industries whose products are consumed… in every quarter of the globe. In the place of old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, a universal interdependence of nations”(16).
International governmental organizations were beginning to play a much more active role in mediation of trade agreements and deregulation of international banking, investment, and capital movement (Mander 2001:42). As multilateral treaties began to infringe on the rights of the global citizen, NGOs with an international structure became more prolific: “Even though many NGOs were initially based in the industrialized countries…there is nonetheless a growing presence of these types of organizations in developing countries as well” (Smith & Smythe 2003: 182). The 1990’s saw an increase of these international organizations from 6000 to 26000 by some estimates (ibid).
The mainstreaming of information and communication technologies (ICTs) advanced the global market in the 1990’s at a phenomenal rate. The barriers of time and space were overcome by means of a modem and internet connection. The global market economy had a new venue that could accelerate distribution and increase profits exponentially. Social activist, Jerry Mander articulated this point very candidly in his article Net Loss:
“The giant transnationals of today simply cannot exist without the global computer networks. When they push their computer keys they cause hundreds of billions of dollars to move from, say, a bank in Geneva to Sarawak, resulting in a forest cut down. Somewhere else they push a key and buy billions of dollars of national currency, only to sell it again a few hours later, leaving the countries’ economies in shambles and populations devasted” (42).
In the Marxist sense, ICTs became the revolutionized technology for the capitalists; a new means of production. However as Marx noted in The Communist Manifesto, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them all social relations” (16). Indeed, this new technology has revolutionized social relations in a variety of ways, including offering a platform for the organization of NGOs across the globe.
The first noticeable indication that this virtual revolution was occurring was the enormous protest that took place at the Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle Washington on November 30, 1999. More than 700 organizations consisting of around 50,000 people arrived in Seattle from all corners of the planet to protest the policies and closed door negotiation process of the World Trade Organization (Hawken 2001:22).
The use of ICTs was an integral factor in this grand mobilization of social movements. There were many benefits of the Internet and web-based discussion lists, or listservs including the extensive access to and immediate transfer of information, the low operational costs and the unlimited networking capabilities. “Hotlink” use connected organizations with one click so movements between the organizations were never bound by physical restrictions. There were key organizations that took the reins in coordinating the direct action, however the demonstration on the streets was non-hierarchical, non-linear, non-focused and was supposed to be non-violent.
What ensued on the streets of Seattle was chaos. The police were not prepared for such an enormous turnout, though neither were the organizers. Both sides blamed the other for the problems, but the overall consensus from the media and thus, the general public, was that what happened in Seattle was based on the actions of misguided youths who had adopted anarchistic ideologies and were only there to cause trouble and loot.
Even the activist community was concerned with the negative portrayal in the media. A conference was held to address the specific problem of the lack of “unity of vision and strategy guiding the movement against global corporatism” (Klein 2001:32).
However as activist and author Naomi Klein indicated, the lack of organizational structure that was apparent in Seattle was due to the nature of the technology that mobilized each individual group;
“what has been overlooked is how the communication technology that facilitates these campaigns is shaping the movement in its own image… What emerged on the streets of Seattle and Washington was an activist model that mirrors the organic, decentralized, interlinked pathways of the Internet – the Internet come to life” (33).
There should be little doubt that the Internet as the 21st century means of production is changing the relations of production. Klein also noted that the only consistency in the organizational structure of the campaigns was “a culture of constant, loosely structured and sometimes compulsive information-swapping” (33). Perhaps the surplus-product of the 21st century is no longer material, and belongs to the realm of ideas and thoughts. Only the producers of these products can own and distribute them and are doing so efficiently by using ICTs.
The success of the activist network is reflected in the sheer numbers of NGOs across the Internet. In 2005, Action Without Borders, boasted an internet directory of over 42,000 organizations in 165 countries; in two years that number has increased to over 66,000. The collective identity of 21st social movements, regardless of the individuality of their criticisms, has formed a class consciousness in an attempt to combat the capitalist hegemony that has dominated postmodern society.
