A Real New World
by madis senner
Experts of all ilks tell us that the Internet has brought forth the great hope of a new and better world. A new age is dawning; marked by the reascension of USA hegemony plus the longest economic recovery ever are all testimonials to this New World Era. The Information Age is replacing the Industrial Age.
But is it? Is this a new age, or a resurfacing of the old?
Consider the Industrial Age and how it altered the lifestyles and the political structure of the Agrarian Age that proceeded it. Industrialization changed how we worked, from farming to manufacturing and, with the migration to cities, how we lived. It improved the economic life of most people and put greater emphasis on material goods. But ultimately the shift in the industrial age was about the shift in power: what defined power, how it was shared, and how it was created. Wealth brought power. And the industrial age changed the vehicle for wealth from land ownership to capital. And although money and commerce had been around for centuries, with the industrial age, capital became a force unto its own. This change was critically important because it reduced the dependency on birthright and land inheritance for wealth and provided new opportunities for advancement.
The rising wealth and power of a new class of citizens put pressure for new forms of government. The English, American and French revolutions were about reducing the influence of the monarchy and establishing new forms of democratic government. More people shared in power or at least felt that they could. Although the new forms of democracy were not perfect-as the campaigns against slavery, poor working conditions and for women's suffrage attest - but the improvement was enormous and, arguably, a level of power sharing not seen in civilization before came about.
If we believe that the Internet Era is replacing the Industrial Age, we might expect to see similar changes in government and power sharing. Are we seeing new forms of government that are more inclusive and democratic? Is there a power shift going on? Are we redefining wealth? Sadly, no. The current e commerce mania is the old capitalist paradigm. Worse, instead of allowing information to blossom we are letting it be controlled; Controlled by allowing every minute aspect of the Internet be patented, or by allowing electronic cookies to eavesdrop on our Internet activity and by allowing the creation barriers to entry through mega mergers. If we are to advance we must let information evolve in unimaginable and unencumbered ways and not let it be diverted to the benefit of an elite few. No one should be allowed to control information! |
During the height of the Internet bubble when I wrote 'A Real New World' I had dinner with a reporter from an Internet magazine. I told him about the Jubilee effort to bring about democracy via the Internet. He asked me;'What do you mean? The internet is totally democratic. It has provided buyers with an infinite amount of choice. Buyers rule.' |
By allowing information to be controlled, we are not only limiting our progress but actually regressing by fueling the discontent and social divide that lurks below our supposed prosperity. The digital divide is growing from those that do or do not have Internet access to those that do or do not control some aspect of the Internet. The anointing of dot.com billionaires through the IPO market widens the divide, reminiscent of the monarchy's attempt to maintain power by knighting the rising wealthy merchants during the early days of the Industrial revolution. Wealth inequality has never been greater in this country. The wealthiest 1-% of Americans own more than 40% of our country's wealth, while the bottom 40% own less than 1%. And wealth is power. There is an overwhelming sense that politicians-and, therefore, the government - are controlled by monied special interests, to the detriment of the masses This hopelessness is reflected in low voter turnout, as was the case in the Gilded Age when robber barons ruled, in the Twenties, when Wall Street ran amok. Public dissatisfaction today can be seen in the popularity of third parties or political candidates who stand against PAC's, special interests or advocate campaign finance reform.
Internet technology can do so much to improve our democracy. We have the framework to make the changes. All we need do is let the technology empower us. It can create a more direct form of democracy by allowing people to vote on important issues themselves. We don't need to vote on every issue-- only those important ones or the ones being advanced by special interest groups. It can also let people set the agenda by reducing the costs of ballot initiatives by authorizing Internet registrations. One of the impediments to ballot initiatives has been cost, which incidentally favors special interest groups. Costs could be reduced if Internet signatures were legal. And then there is that dream of our founding father to convene a continental congress. The Internet technology can make that dream a possibility. The Internet can do so much, all we have to do is think BIG!
Change is scary, but worth the risk. The life of the average industrial worker was better than that of the Agrarian Age serf. Internet age citizens should expect technology to improve their lives, too. And we as Americans can do it, because we can vote on it. We can have revolution by evolution. We call those who stand against technological progress 'Luddites', after the 19th century textile workers who rioted over machines replacing jobs. It is time we redefined the term to include those that stand against social and democratic change as well. So when someone tells you that this vision of new Information age is some starry eyed Utopia, tell them they are a Luddite-- and that if sort of thinking had dominated the last few hundred years, we'd all still be serfs.