'Network Society' Seems Anti-Individualistic

It would seem natural to think that a phrase like the 'network society', even capitalized, would merely refer to a world connected by the links of computerized networks. To some extent that is true. Ericcson, the Swedish technology company, says on its website that the network "will fundamentally change the way we innovate, collaborate, produce, govern and sustain." 

But something called the Centre for Personal Sovereignty claims that this network society "resembles laissez-faire capitalism combined with the better promise of Marxism."

First I would ask what the 'better promise' could possibly be if it is not the individual existing free of government interference in the market-workings of his enterprises. The term 'free market'...means free of government's aggressive force, said Reason Magazine. 'Regulation' of industry is often necessary, such as in labeling, where we don't want two products called 'aspirin', one of which is not acetylsalicylic acid; where we want to be assured that our meat is properly handled before packaging; where a Doctor has the necessary knowledge and competence to practice what we believe he says he can. But regulation of the market place, ala Marx, helps no one and hurts all.

This "network society" in general is not an economic system: "The impact of this revolutionary political system," the Centre says, "though today existing only in theory, can already be calculated."

Of course it can. I can calculate that because it is a political system that it will contain government interference, legal plunder and legally aggressive force. After all, it "maximizes market efficiencies" instead of letting the market finds its own way of doing that.

"Unlike capitalist systems," the Centre says, "in a Network Society the 'people' as individuals fully own their personal means of production. One's compensation is directly proportionate to one's value as we all become economic and political 'free agents'." 

They also say "it also represents control over your own means of production - that is, you will learn to reap the full economic value derived from what you do, rather than giving that value to your boss. A business owner that earns a profit from the efforts of her employees will be reaping the excess rewards derived from the synergistic efforts of the entire group (1 + 1 = 3). This excess value represents the value of the owner's ability to orchestrate the efforts of independent parts towards a productive end."

This gobbeldy-gook of twisted language leave me with questions:

• If you can still have a boss who "reaps the excess rewards", how is it different from capitalism?
• If you still have a boss, how do you "fully own your personal means of production", and if you do, why pay anything to a boss, let alone have a boss?
• How is the "synergistic" efforts of "the entire group" (what group?) any different from a normal workplace today?
• If an employer is the one who knows how to "orchestrate the efforts of independent parts towards a productive end," why is s/he reaping "excess rewards"? How can they be "excess" when s/he is doing essentially what the owner of his "personal means of production" will be doing; is that person not also reaping "excess rewards"? In excess of what? In excess of who's rewards? Why can't someone keep all his own rewards?

It all reminds me of Ayn Rand's criticism of Kant, when she said he "originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age." We are living in such an age, and the technique keeps going and going.

After all, it would seem that my blogging and authoring a book to be sold only on line for E-readers would be the very thing Ericcson and the Centre and others are discussing. But it scares me to think that they want to include what I do in their crazy scheme of "the better promise of Marxism."

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook  
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Chick fil A Day Wasn't About Free Speech

Yesterday at Chick-fil-A, part of the nation showed up to support either
1) free speech, or
2) the politics of anti-gay-marriage.

But when the mayor of three prominent cities say Chick-fil-A is not welcome in their cities, is it because the mayors have a deep seated belief in social equality, meaning they don't like the politics of a biased company against a large part of their constituency;

or is it really because they don't support free speech?

The Tea Party on Facebook reported, "The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay unions, urged a boycott when General Mills and Starbucks came out in favor of same-sex marriage."

So this doesn't seem like a free-speech debate to me. It seems totally politically-centered. Yet I know there must be some who went to a Chick-fil-A to support free speech.

Yet, who was actually saying it was a free speech issue? CNN reported that "now a population already sharply divided over same-sex marriage is collectively less informed about the First Amendment," adding that the Amendment "does not protect you from private individuals' negative reaction to your speech." Exactly. How do you separate the "free speech" from the message contained in it?

The Houston Chronicle said people were showing up to support the anti-gay-marriage view. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dubbed it 'Chick Fil A Appreciation Day'. Do you think it was over the issue of free speech? This former Baptist minister-turned-mushy-conservative former Governor, US News.com said, "wrote that he was 'incensed at the vitriolic assaults' made on Chick-fil-A as a result of their stance against gay marriage." Those 'assaults' were not made because someone protested the right to free speech. USA Today.com said he wanted people to "get behind Chick-fil-A as the company takes a stand against same-sex marriage."

The Daily News of Los Angeles said the company's free speech wasn't at issue. Instead, it said, "If it's OK to choose between McDonalds and Jack in the Box based on which clown mascot you like better, it should be OK to choose between Chick-fil-A and its competitors based on the images their logos conjure up."

Well, speaking as a gay man, every person and every company has a right to free speech. And a call for a boycott is never a boycott against their right to say what they want; it's always about the substance of the speech. I will not eat anywhere that is against my natural law right to association-through-government-sanction. The wall of separation between church and state ought to extend also to marriage.

Individual sovereignty means freedom from government interference, and when we are not allowed to legally do what straight people do outside of a church, that is, get a civil marriage rather than a religious one, then there is no separation of church and state for anyone who is not heterosexual.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook © Curtis Edward Clark 2012