DouglasWard.net Random ramblings from an IT Director

The latest issue of Wired Magazine features an article called The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online.  The author, Kevin Kelly, lays out an interesting case for a new form of socialism.  Today’s social networks (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Wikipedia, etc…) are all examples of this behavior.  After reading the article however, I must admit to some trouble with the language.  We start with this:

Bill Gates once derided open source advocates with the worst epithet a capitalist can muster. These folks, he said, were a “new modern-day sort of communists,” a malevolent force bent on destroying the monopolistic incentive that helps support the American dream. Gates was wrong: Open source zealots are more likely to be libertarians than commie pinkos. Yet there is some truth to his allegation. The frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.

Already in the first paragraph we see several terms that are charged with meaning.  No matter how we use them, words have their own definition.  If a writer chooses to use a word loaded with negative connotations it will carry that meaning no matter how hard it is explained away.  Starting off the article by comparing free and open source software to communism is a tough way to start.  The author does tries to explain it away but the words still ring heavily at the beginning.

The author does at least admit to the overly charged nature of his words:

I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there’s rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.

I disagree.  There are plenty of unsoiled terms we may use.  Why not adopt some of the language of the Creative Commons movement?  Can we not refer to open source software as a Town Commons?  How about using the term freedom?  I’ll let the elites bounce around their ideas but we have to come up with something.  We must move away from Microsoft FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) and politically charged terms when trying to describe the open source movement.  The average American uses terms such as socialism, communism and fascism interchangeably, even though they are very different.  They simply don’t know the difference.  When the word socialism is read the majority of Americans immediately associate it as bad.

Socialism is a legal framework.  The government imposes a system on the people and everyone is compelled (either willingly or unwillingly) to join and function within the system.  This is not the case with social networks.  No one is compelled to create or edit a Wikipedia article.  No one has to upload their entire lives to Facebook.  Twitter is voluntary.  While there is greater power in collaborative social networks, all are free to leave.  This is surely not the case with socialism.

Using this terminology makes sense to people like me, but to the rest of the general public it really does hurt the overall movement.  Socialism is a system that while similar, is not a very good comparison.  You should read the article.  I am interested in what you have to say about it.  I do however, regret this article, and hope that it doesn’t set the movement back too far.