Morning Comrades!
I came across a tweet the other day that posed the question of what the internet would look like if I had not been based on the necessity for profit. Truthfully, I have been spinning ideas around in my head every second of this weekend even when I was busy with work and the usual house work that rears its annoying head on your days off. It is without a doubt that the internet has had and continues to have a profound impact on our lives, for better or worse, but the question of its basis, as we know it today doesn’t get touched upon all that often outside of obscure academic conferences and papers. Not today, so get ready.
If you are as old as I am, mid 40s, you might remember the early days of the internet, AOL chatrooms and the likes and will remember how little of the net was monetized. The original intent of the internet was to create a decentralized communication network that could connect computers and allow for the exchange of information between them. The idea was to create a network that could survive a nuclear attack, by routing information around damaged nodes, and also to allow researchers and academics to share information easily and quickly.
The internet was first developed in the late 1960s by the US Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which funded the creation of a packet-switched network called ARPANET. The original goal of ARPANET was to create a network that could be used to share computing resources among researchers at different universities and government agencies.
In my early years on the internet, just as I was starting University there was heaps of Utopian and Philosophical discussion about the potentials of such a network, a global interconnected library and communication platform and it is wild to see what it has turned into instead. As far as I understand the majority of the internet, despite its original infrastructure having been built and paid for by our taxes, now is in the hands of a select few companies whose only interest is to create profit with it, especially through advertising. The need - and we will get to the point if it is actually a need - to generate profit was solved by advertising, moving this capitalist model of revenue and influence into a limitless sphere, the ultimate goal of colonialism one could argue and now we are left with a surveillance apparatus, abused by our governments to repress dissent, at the very least and a individualistic targeted advertisment structure that pales against the ideas presented in 1984.
That led me to several questions: one, what could the internet look like today had we never commercialized it, secondly, on broader terms, why do we still believe in the wildly disproven ideology that a profit based economic model guarantees progress and lastly what a Marxist viewpoint of all this could be.
For one, had we eschewed a profit motive the internet could be more focused on providing public goods and services. Altruism is part of our so called human experience and from an utopian perspective, had we disregarded a profit based society the internet could be huge benefactor in human cooperation. For example, online education and research could be more widely available and accessible, as there would be no pressure to monetize these services. Another possibility is that the internet could be more decentralized, with less control held by a small number of large corporations, or even better, by us, alone without any corporations. This would lead to a more diverse and democratic internet, where users have more control over the content they consume and the services they use. One potential advantage of government/public ownership is that it could lead to greater accountability and transparency in the operations of internet companies. With public ownership, there would be less need to prioritize the interests of shareholders over the interests of the public, and companies could be held more accountable for their actions.
Additionally, without the need to prioritize profit, government-owned internet companies could potentially invest more in research and development, and could prioritize the development of new technologies and services that benefit the public interest. All this lead me to try and think of why we have this idea set in place, today, why a profit based economic model is enforced by those who are to gain from it and where it comes from.
The idea that profit creates innovation has been around for centuries and is often attributed to Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. Smith's influential book "The Wealth of Nations," published in 1776, argued that economic growth and prosperity could be achieved through the pursuit of self-interest and the profit motive.
However, the idea that profit drives innovation has been challenged by many economists and scholars, who argue that other factors, such as government support, public investment, and collaboration, can also drive innovation. In fact, some argue that a focus on short-term profit can actually be detrimental to innovation, as companies may prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term research and development.
I am certain you’ve heard this argument over and over again, and similarly have dismissed it as bootlicking jibba jabba that it is, especially the human nature argument of greed.
The claim that greed is part of human nature is not a definitive or accurate depiction of human behavior. While it is true that some individuals may exhibit selfish or greedy tendencies, it is incorrect to generalize this behavior as an inherent characteristic of the entire human population.
Firstly, there are numerous examples of individuals who do not exhibit greed or selfishness in their daily lives. Many people prioritize the well-being of their loved ones, their communities, and the broader society over their own self-interest. They may volunteer their time, donate money to charitable causes, or simply act in a compassionate and empathetic manner towards others.
Secondly, it is important to recognize that many instances of greed or selfishness are influenced by external factors, such as societal norms, economic incentives, or cultural values. For example, in societies where individual wealth is highly valued and actively pursued, people may be more likely to exhibit greedy behavior. However, this does not mean that greed is an inherent trait of human nature, but rather a product of cultural conditioning.
Thirdly, studies in psychology and sociology have shown that humans are capable of exhibiting a wide range of behaviors, including generosity, altruism, and cooperation. These behaviors are often motivated by a desire to foster social connections, promote the common good, or simply experience the positive emotions associated with helping others.
A Marxist perspective can provide a further nuanced understanding of the claim that greed is part of human nature. Marxists argue that human nature is not fixed, but rather is shaped by social and economic conditions. In a capitalist system, for example, individuals are encouraged to pursue their own self-interest and accumulate wealth, even at the expense of others. This creates a society in which greed and selfishness are normalized and even celebrated, and individuals are incentivized to prioritize profit over social and environmental responsibility.
Marxists would argue that this tendency towards greed and selfishness is not inherent to human nature, but rather is a product of the capitalist system itself. In Marxist theory, the accumulation of wealth by a small minority of individuals is made possible by the exploitation of the working class. This system perpetuates inequality, and encourages individuals to prioritize their own interests over the needs of the collective.
Furthermore, Marxists would argue that the pursuit of profit and wealth has negative social and environmental consequences, such as the destruction of natural resources, the exacerbation of social inequality, and the erosion of social cohesion. From this perspective, greed and selfishness are not only harmful to society, but are also irrational and unsustainable.
Coming back then Scientific Utopianism, Altruism, Innovation, Progress and Alternatives.
There are various alternative motivators for innovation that can be used instead of profit. Here are a few examples:
Public good: Innovation can be driven by a desire to create products or services that benefit society as a whole. This can include solutions to environmental or social problems, or products that improve access to education, healthcare, or other essential services.
Recognition and reputation: Innovators may be motivated by the desire for recognition and respect from their peers and the broader community. This can lead to a focus on creating high-quality and innovative products, rather than solely on maximizing profit.
Intrinsic motivation: Innovation can also be driven by internal factors, such as personal interest, curiosity, and the desire to learn and explore new ideas. Innovators may be motivated by the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment that comes from creating something new and valuable.
But I am rambling, at the end of this past weekend I didn’t get all that far in fleshing out what an internet without a profit motive could look like, fun and exhilarating I would imagine. Of course the point here was to spark everyone’s imagination what a world we could create without profit as its base principle, let alone sole motivator. If this is of interest I highly recommend Aaron Bastani’s seminal book “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” that deals with this type of utopianism specifically.
I will leave you with this reality by the late David Graeber:
“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.”
Yours, always dreaming and working on a better today and tomorrow,
V.