Letter: Class struggle through ‘cyber struggle’ (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Class struggle through ‘cyber struggle’

Dear Editors,

I disagree with Jonathan Meakin’s pessimistic conclusions regarding the global computer network known as the Internet (“Internet; Forum or Marketplace?", Socialist Standard, June 1995). My experience as an avid "net surfer” lucky enough to enjoy cheap access as a university student is that the Internet does not simply mirror the capitalist marketplace. At the moment only about one half of net “traffic” is put to commercial use. Alongside this market-driven content is an incredible diversity of non-commodified information reflecting the multiplicity of net users, most of whom seem to be hostile towards attempts at money-making and the imposition of state (or any other) censorship. The decentralised and fluid nature of this form of communication has been capitalised on by unions and grassroots organisations around the world in their attempts at preventing the erosion of gains won under capitalism in the face of the innocuous sounding “global restructuring". Unions in particular, while slow to catch on to the potentialities of "cyber-struggle”, have more recently begun to the use the Internet to coordinate strikes and boycotts, educate around labour issues, and make links around the globe with otherwise isolated union activists. One of the most successful political uses of the net came with the dissemination of information concerning the plight of Mayan Indians in the Mexican state of Chiapas, following the recent crackdown by the Mexican government. The situation was largely ignored by the mainstream media, yet the support garnered from the speedy and widespread publicising of the demands of the Zapatistas on various global computer networks was cited as one of the main reasons why the government was eventually forced to negotiate with the rebels.

There are also numerous mail-lists, newsgroups, and "web sites” which are of more direct interest to socialists. One particular mail-lists "oneunion”—involves participants drawn from the political sector which the World Socialist Movement shares an affinity with; anti-statist and non-market socialists and anarchists. Discussions on this list are wide-ranging and include debating the relative merits of "free access” versus labour vouchers. criticisms of reformism, and appropriate methods of working-class organisation. There is also an excellent web site where those who are so inclined can access most of the work of Marx and Engels at the touch of a button.

Of course, the Internet is not perfect and it cannot escape being tainted by capitalist social relations. As Meakin acknowledges. availability is obviously restricted to those with literacy and access to a computer, modem, and the relevant software— which counts out the vast majority of the world’s population— although the growth of "freenets" (computers hooked up to the Internet available free of charge usually in public libraries) is encouraging. The question of whether computer-mediated communication is desirable given the health risks associated with the production and use of this form of technology, is important to consider. And with the Clinton-backed "Information Super-Highway" just around the corner, the possibilities for Orwellian levels of surveillance and social control of people in their homes is indeed frightening.

Nevertheless, commercialisation and state interference with the Internet is not as inevitable as Meakin implies. It is unlikely that the millions who, at the moment, enjoy the accessibility, diversity, autonomy, and co-operative nature of the net will simply stand aside and concede to the crass consumerism of the invading market. In fact, if it is inevitable that every form of communication used by workers to counter capitalist ideology and exploitation will eventually succumb to the "law of the market", how on earth will socialist ideas spread? Why wait for a revolution? Used in concert with other media, the Internet has the potential to become a useful tool in the hands of a growing socialist movement and, despite the ruminations of neo-luddites, it is probably here to stay.

Julian Prior, 

Vancouver, Canada (julianp@sfu.ca)

Note: 

The Marx and Engels Archive is available on the World Wide Web at http:// csf.Colorado.EDU:80/psn/marx/ To join the "oneunion" maillist send a message to OneUnion- request@list.lever.com with the subject “subscribe”.

Instability and Corruption (1995)

From the March 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is now almost universally accepted that politicians aspiring
 to positions of power do so on the failings of those already in 
power rather than on any ideas of their own. Everywhere we 
look in the world today capitalism is in chaos - and it isn't
 going to get any better.

It seems that the more capitalism develops the more anarchic the global as system becomes, with chaotic economic development in such areas as China's free enterprise zones and the mad scramble for power in the wars of Soviet succession. In the West so-called democracy just seems to lead to confusion as politicians are unable to solve basic economic and social problems. As people have not yet identified capitalism as the real cause of these problems, the latest set of incumbent politicians are blamed, as if the next lot have the magic formula.

So in France we have seen the “Socialist" government and parliamentary representatives decimated in elections as unemployment and crime rise, to be replaced by a right-wing government who in turn are incapable of solving economic problems and will probably be replaced by a resurgent left. Whilst in Italy a government elected on a specific anti-corruption ticket has collapsed through corruption allegations and a confused electorate are prepared to vote in desperation for extremist parties.

The list could go on, so in this context the convoluted events in Ireland do not seem so surprising. The fact that Ireland's electoral system, in common with much of Europe, creates coalitions means that frequent changes of government are common as partners in these coalitions squabble. In Ireland the specific causes of that squabbling in recent years revolved around the main coalition partner, Fianna Fail, and its cosy relationship with Ireland's largest beef baron and how that relationship upset the “normal” running of government business, irritating the other coalition parties.

Having already caused one general election this underlying feeling quickly soured another coalition, this time between Fianna Fail and an electorally confident Labour Party. The catalyst that broke this coalition, as everyone probably knows by now, was the inexplicable delay by the Irish Attorney General's office to extradite a paedophile priest to Northern Ireland, and the insistence of Fianna Fail to promote the very man responsible for this delay. The catalogue of excuses, blame and backbiting that ensued meant that the coalition was doomed. This bizarre story finally ended with a parliamentary coalition reshuffle excluding Fianna Fail and the introduction of Democratic Left into the coalition to make up the numbers.

Political instability and corruption seem to be endemic to governments but whatever the specific causes of each incidence of graft or dispute the general underlying cause is capitalism.

Never-ending search for profit

Capitalism as an economic system is inherently unstable for a number of

reasons.

• It is based on the never-ending search for profits through competition, which manifests itself as rivalry between companies, regions and social and economic interest groups. Just the fact that the world is divided into about two hundred countries at the last count is example enough. The majority of them are divided again into numerous regions each with their own elites who in turn are divided into various factions due to historical, cultural or regional developments. This can only result in unequal economic development as resources go to areas of greatest potential profit or patronage rather than to areas of greatest economic need. This economic confusion and instability caused by capitalism leads to threatened or actual armed conflict between economic rivals on a grim and regular basis.
• The economic cycle of boom and slump caused by the tendency of capitalism to over-produce during a boom and thus reduce the rate of profit causing a slump. This cycle tends to hit the most economically and socially vulnerable harder in a slump and benefit the wealthy most in a boom.
• The division of society into two opposing and unequal classes. The minority owns the means of production and obtains profit by extracting unpaid labour from the majority who have only their labour power to sell. This fundamental difference of needs automatically results in conflict, class conflict, a never-ending, daily war of attrition that manifests itself in various ways. The most obvious is continual industrial disputes throughout every sector of the capitalist economy as workers attempt to defend or improve their economic position and are resisted at every step by the employers intent on improving their profit margins.

Thus, because the economic base of society is unstable, it is logical to assume that the social and political structure which rests on this base is also unstable. The facts prove this assumption correct. The supposed separation of powers in liberal democratic governments between the judiciary, legislature and executive, rather than acting as checks and balances on each other, are just the tools or conduits through which rival groups compete for access to power and resources. Indeed the American government, which is supposed to be the prime example of the separation of powers, can also be the prime example of a government in thrall to graft and corruption from lowly congressmen up to the President and riven by rivalry between the regions and social groups.

So what of the future? Well it's business as usual. The political theatre may provide entertainment but, as one economic commentator mentioned at the height of the crisis, who is in government has very little impact on the workings of the capitalist system. The iron laws of competition, profit and class conflict will remain as long as capitalism remains together with the disastrous global ramifications that this entails.

Jonathan Meakin

Letters: 'Socialist Material will be Dwarfed' (1995)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In response to Julian Prior’s letter about the article on the Internet in the August issue of Socialist Standard I’d like to make a few points.

The first one is that the Internet is just like other information disseminators such as newspapers, books and magazines except it’s electronic and generally cheaper. For instance the Socialist Standard is a hard copy form of information distributed to a few thousand around the world and compared to the Sun, a tabloid gossip rag in the UK. which is read by around four million daily it doesn’t compare.

Similarly, on the net socialists distribute their information electronically but once the big corporations move in, again, socialist material will be dwarfed. It's true what he says about groups resisting this encroachment by corporations onto the net, but that's capitalism isn’t it? The past 200 years of capitalism has been about people resisting the commercialisation of life. It's also true what he says about Mexico and the Mayan rebels, indeed the same could be said about the Russian coup attempt in 1991 or Tiananmen Square both of which used fax and computer technology to alert the world. But what’s new about this? In the past, rebellions and wars were brought to public view using newspapers or leaflets. All that has changed is the method not the content. It’s also true that socialists won’t stand aside whilst the corporations move in, but if the Internet is growing at such a rate then socialists will be sidelined. If half the net is commercialised now after only two or three years of real net use then what’s it going to be like in 10 years?

My general view is that we should see the net for what it is, a convenient and valuable information and communication resource and use it as such. In fact that’s what I find exciting about the net, the accessibility of information and its global reach. I certainly don't think it will go away, but I'm sure that this new global reach of the net is going to be used by corporations for their own ends.

As for how people are going to become socialists if information is market-led, people become socialists for various reasons. not exclusively through access to socialist literature. In some ways it could be argued that people have to be socialist or socialistically-inclined to know where to get socialist literature in the first place, in other words most socialist literature preaches to the semi-converted anyway. But, of course this shouldn’t mean that socialist literature has no wider value, as people's life experiences and increasing global outlook encourages them to look for better ways to manage our world then socialism will become an increasingly viable option. 

Jonathan Meakin, 

Leixlip, Co. Kildare,

Ireland (jmeakin@iol.ie)

Band Aids and Aspirin

Dear Editors,

No doubt there is a need for the relief given to the desperate. poor, starving and sick people of the Third World by various charities, including Oxfam (Socialist Standard July). Just as there is no doubt that there is a need for the secondhand clothing sold to the poorest people in this country by Oxfam and other charities.

The fact is, however, that a world in which some depend on charitable schemes for bare subsistence. and others, the admittedly less absolutely poor, depend on the discarded clothing of the more affluent, is a sick world. Charity, I am sure the most fervent Oxfam supporter must admit, is not a solution, but band aid or aspirin at best Socialism is the cure.

Robert Taylor, 

South Shields, Tyne & Wear

In defense of Islam

Dear Editors,

I am writing in response to A. Ditta's letter about "Socialism versus Islam" (Socialist Standard, August). In his letter, Ditta states that "Islam is a very oppressive religion depriving women, gays and other minority groups of fundamental rights". I find this statement very hard to swallow. The goal of Islam is to give rights to all people in order to create a just and tolerant society. In pre-lslamic Arabia, a woman was looked down upon as a source of grief, and baby girls were sometimes buried alive. Henry VIII forbade the women in England to read the Bible, and throughout the middles ages, the Catholic Church treated women as second-class citizens. Before 1850, women were not counted as citizens in England and English women had no personal rights until 1882 (Islam: Beliefs and Teachings, Ghulam Sarwar). Under Islam, women have had all of these rights and more for fourteen hundred years. As for Islam being oppressive towards minority groups. I’m not quite sure to whom A. Ditta is referring. If Ditta is referring to “racial minorities", I will point out that Islam embraces people of all colours. If Ditta is referring to the economic minority, the upper class, s/he can rest assured that they are not deprived of their fundamental rights. I am not clear on whether or not gays are deprived of their fundamental rights, so I must abstain from making any comment at the present moment.

Islam's main goal can be paralleled to one of the goals of socialism. This goal is to create a just, loving and tolerant society. It is compulsory for Muslims to give charity and the richer members of society are advised to spread their wealth throughout the community to try and balance the unequal distribution of wealth. It is true that Muslim countries have a record of abusing human rights, but the religion of Islam cannot be blamed for that. Many people in power abuse human rights on a regular basis and use Islam to justify their actions. They cloak their sins by falsely sighting Islam as the reason for what they do. It is these people who are responsible for denying fundamental rights to other human beings, not Islam. Erum Faruqi, 

London SWI

Reply:

Assuming that Erum Faruqi is correct about the goals of Islam being to create a "just, loving and tolerant society” the fact remains that it has failed to do so in fourteen hundred years. If Islam is such a powerful force of good and tolerance then these abusers of human rights would not have got to the positions they have. It is strange that one cannot cite a single Islamic country that lives up to the ideals that she refers to. or even comes anywhere near—the divisions of wealth in all of them is as great as anywhere else. The answer, of course, is that Muslims put their trust in leaders (both religious and secular) instead of themselves and that is fatal.

Islam accepts the class nature of society though it had some difficulties in embracing the capitalist form but in the end managed to find a way round that. There's an old saying about the rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs and this is precisely what the rich Muslims who "spread their wealth throughout the community” are doing. They still rely on the exploitation of Muslim and other workers to maintain their wealth and privilege and then arc “generous" enough to hand a few coins of conscience money back.

Erum Faruqi says that a goal of Islam is to give rights to all people. Who are these people who are to bestow these rights? Probably the very same people she accuses of abusing human rights. Socialists don’t want to be given anything by the capitalist class, our aim is to get the majority producing class in society to take democratically the resources of the world and use them for the benefit of all. As socialists we aren't concerned whether Islam is or is not better than other religions. As far as we are concerned all religions—Islam, Christianity. Judaism. Hinduism. Buddhism, the lot—are absurd and wrong.

Islam may have started out with good intentions but now workers all over the world should start questioning their religious beliefs and their support of leaders and ask themselves if they can better their situation by organising together democratically to build a socialist movement which won’t be able to be hijacked by power-seekers who use the discontent of workers to get to the top. 

Editors.

Internet: Forum or Marketplace? (1995)

From the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people, by now. will have heard of the Internet. It is one of those jargon words that have entered popular consciousness. For those unclear as to what it is, the Internet is basically a computer linked by the telephone system to millions of other computers around the world providing an easy and relatively cheap form of global communication. (Provided, of course, that you have a computer in the first place.)

Most people who access the Internet do so through so-called "gateways" which in effect are companies who sell software necessary to log on, along with a subscription to several megabytes of computer storage space, for downloaded information like e-mail letters or news. Some companies like CompuServe aren't gateways but run their own exclusive network accessible again through a subscription. With a rapidly expanding number of people—30 million at the last estimate—with access to the internet, the attraction of this market, and its potential for commercialisation by gateways and proprietary networks is obvious.

Computer exponents have been promoting the Internet as the most important breakthrough in communications since Gutenberg printed the first bible in the vernacular, and on the surface they are right. Anyone with access to a computer, a modem and the necessary software can send electronic mail (e-mail) or log on to news groups discussing anything from Anarchism to The X-Files.

The benefits of this technology have not been lost on various political groups. Neo-Nazis in America have for years had their own network. Anarchists also see the organisational rewards of the Internet and many wax lyrical about the non-hierarchical, democratic nature of the "net". But in reality the Internet is just like any other information forum in capitalism.

The Internet operates like a market-place, interest groups all pitch in willy-nilly. Because of the relative newness of the Internet this swirl of babble can be mistaken for an electronic Greek agora, but already even this rose-tinted view is being dispelled as the big corporations move in. The Rupert Murdochs of the world aren't fooled for one minute by the anarcho-tech’s talk of the Internet being a window into a libertarian future. Literally billions of pounds are being invested into ways of capturing the 30 million-plus people who have access to the internet, these people aren't contributors to a brave new experiment in global communication. They're a Market.

As with all development in capitalism access to the technology is unequal and market-driven. Even though the number with access to the Internet is rising rapidly, there are untold millions who will never have access, or at best a restricted one. because their ability as consumers is limited. Even those with purchasing power cannot evade the logic of capitalist market culture. In the next few years the Internet will be superseded, as the technology improves, by combining television and computer into a wider, corporately-controlled medium, in which all the fake, superficial culture of capitalism will be pumped into people’s homes on an even more unrelenting level.

The Internet provides us with another example of the technological dynamism of capitalist development being restricted by its own economic laws. Time and time again technology has been developed with the potential to liberate humanity from want, but instead has been used to maximise profit for a small minority. Just think what benefits the Internet could bring in a socialist society for the global assessment and distribution of needs as well as the spread of information. 

Jonathan Meakin