Digital Fascism?

[Michael]

On December 6, Barack Obama announced his intention to fund a massive public works program of somewhere between $400 and $700 billion which will create enough jobs to avert the economic catastrophe of the 1930s. But I fear that one element in Obama’s well-intentioned infrastructure plan—his goal of providing all Americans with broadband Internet access—might one day be seen as inadvertently laying the foundations for a return to fascism, the political catastrophe of the 1930’s.

In the Europe of the 1930s, representative democracy’s abject failure to confront the rage of mass unemployment and dislocation led to the rise of fascist organizations such as the Spanish Falangists, the German National Socialists, and the Romanian Iron Guard. What the interwar fascists provided—with their messianic leaders, their torchlight parades, their xenophobic propaganda—was a placebo to the hopelessness that had enveloped ordinary people’s lives.

...

In an America with universal broadband access and 50 million unemployed people, expect the biggest online hit to be a mash-up of Loose Change and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—an “innovative” low budget movie blaming the entire global financial meltdown on all the (Robert) Rubins and (Larry) Summers of Wall Street.

The internet is bad for you (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-19/the-internet-is-bad-for-you/full/)

I've never thought much of this angle before - mass internet broadband being a vehicle of populist-driven fascism. Very interesting argument.

Anyone else find this prediction to be realistic?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sounds like elitism on the part of those people who can afford broadband, myself.

Certainly, hard economic times have a way of creating extremist political movements... but such movements have no need of the Internet to give them legs, and the idea that giving poor people the Internet is going to turn them into fascists is ludicrous.

This is the first time I've ever heard of "bread and circuses" being proposed as the cause of unrest.

[Americano]

Roosevelt's fireside chats, radio only, were considered an important, successful psychological factor in government maintaining touch with the public after the US '29 crash. PC users without broadband who now distrust other forms of mass, for profit media would be unable to view government video online. I never watch TV and skip the national headline news in my local paper. I have zero patience for them. At this point I could speculate his covering all the bases. Beyond that the government will do what special interests require as long as there's a single penny left in the treasury. It's difficult to teach an old dog pack new tricks.

[partofme]

Roosevelt's fireside chats, radio only, were considered an important, successful psychological factor in government maintaining touch with the public after the US '29 crash. PC users without broadband who now distrust other forms of mass, for profit media would be unable to view government video online. I never watch TV and skip the national headline news in my local paper. I have zero patience for them. At this point I could speculate his covering all the bases. Beyond that the government will do what special interests require as long as there's a single penny left in the treasury. It's difficult to teach an old dog pack new tricks.

Do you keep up with national and international news and if so what sources do you prefer?

[Donkey]

I guess I don't "get" what the author is saying... take this for example:
And for an even more real-time example of digital fascism, take a look at the way in which this week’s raging anti government violence in Greece by the young and unemployed (already at over 9% in the Greek economy) has been coordinated by Facebook, Twitter and other viral digital networks.

That seems to me the opposite of fascism. (I guess I understand the link he makes, but I don't agree.) The internet is perfect for rabble-rousers, conspiracy theorists, ideologues, propaganda, etc. But more than that, it instantly connects millions of people for communication, open sharing of ideas, etc. If anything, I would say that the internet is a better example of functioning anarchism than just about anything else.

[Americano]

Do you keep up with national and international news and if so what sources do you prefer?

I do, primarily with Google news, Reuters, Bloomberg, Asia times and Washington Post, all online. I skim the offerings for items of interest. And then there are the often innumerable links offered on public forum discussions, partisan and non-partisan.

[partofme]

I do, primarily with Google news, Reuters, Bloomberg, Asia times and Washington Post, all online. I skim the offerings for items of interest. And then there are the often innumerable links offered on public forum discussions, partisan and non-partisan.

Google News is nice. Definitely allows you to have a variety of sources.

[Americano]

Google News is nice. Definitely allows you to have a variety of sources.

Google News is a definite example of modern technology. Headline, brief synopsis and pick one of normally over a hundred news sources for the story.

I'm not much of a fan of the majority of AP (Associated Press) breaking news articles. To me they seem hesitant without depth. But they do have a lot of individual newspaper and newspaper chain customers to please. I'm trying to remember an AP news article that condemned US policy but I'm struggling with that search.

[Michael]

Sounds like elitism on the part of those people who can afford broadband, myself.

Certainly, hard economic times have a way of creating extremist political movements... but such movements have no need of the Internet to give them legs, and the idea that giving poor people the Internet is going to turn them into fascists is ludicrous.

This is the first time I've ever heard of "bread and circuses" being proposed as the cause of unrest.
You seem to discount here the potential for the internet as a vehicle of political activism.

I think this is very short-sighted. The 'blogosphere' is massively shifting the nature and character of 'the news industry' (wiping out corporate titans) as massively changing the nature and character of political fundraising (see examples of Howard Dean's online organizing, or Ron Paul's and Obama's online fundraising success - both are on an order of magnitude better and more powerful than anything ever done before).

Without a doubt, the internet has the power/potential to reshape American politics - for good or ill.

[Michael]

Roosevelt's fireside chats, radio only, were considered an important, successful psychological factor in government maintaining touch with the public after the US '29 crash. PC users without broadband who now distrust other forms of mass, for profit media would be unable to view government video online. I never watch TV and skip the national headline news in my local paper. I have zero patience for them. At this point I could speculate his covering all the bases. Beyond that the government will do what special interests require as long as there's a single penny left in the treasury. It's difficult to teach an old dog pack new tricks.
Whether or not Obama moves on this issue (of 'broadband' infrastructure) as part of an economic incentive plan, is technically beside the point.

Such a policy would only increase the speed of adoption of broadband 'unlimited' access to the internet to the largest number of citizens.

The fact is, 'unlimited' broadband access is eventually going to get there anyways. Obama's plan is 'sooner' rather than 'later'.

And the key issue at hand is the question of what political effect this could have on US politics. Certainly the internet empowers political activism, and seems like a very good vehicle for political 'populism'. And political 'populism' is a very powerful tactic that can be easily mobilized for fascism (see example of Mussolini, Franco or Hitler - as well as Salazar in Portugal or Peron in Argentina).

The key argument is that populism is a well known and successfully used weapon/tool/tactic of the fascists. And the internet just may (inherently) empower populist political activism. The combination could pose serious danger to US democracy.

I consider the threat to be a serious one.

[Donkey]

Whether or not Obama moves on this issue (of 'broadband' infrastructure) as part of an economic incentive plan, is technically beside the point.

Such a policy would only increase the speed of adoption of broadband 'unlimited' access to the internet to the largest number of citizens.

The fact is, 'unlimited' broadband access is eventually going to get there anyways. Obama's plan is 'sooner' rather than 'later'.

And the key issue at hand is the question of what political effect this could have on US politics. Certainly the internet empowers political activism, and seems like a very good vehicle for political 'populism'. And political 'populism' is a very powerful tactic that can be easily mobilized for fascism (see example of Mussolini, Franco or Hitler - as well as Salazar in Portugal or Peron in Argentina).

The key argument is that populism is a well known and successfully used weapon/tool/tactic of the fascists. And the internet just may (inherently) empower populist political activism. The combination could pose serious danger to US democracy.

I consider the threat to be a serious one.
Perhaps. But populism is not a direct path to fascism; there are other routes that it could go. I'm of the opinion that a little populism is good for a society. :erm:

Also, while the internet is an excellent vehicle for populism, it is also a powerful tool for dissent. The internet is so young (I know, it's older than me, but still) that I think anybody making serious assertions about its potential is really just making idle speculations.