The Relevance of Social Media from a Neo-Marxist Perspective - Essay Example

Introduction Karl Marx may no longer be around today to witness an interesting cultural phenomenon brought about by the latest developments in information technology. Nevertheless, his ideas continue to be upheld by many social scientists, activists, and revolutionaries until these present times. However, various strands of Marxist theories have arisen through the years after his death. Many of its proponents have indulged in trading accusations of revisionism or deviation from what they perceive as Marxism in its purest and most accurate. In the Cold War era especially in the 70's, a new leftist movement, which many academics and social thinkers claim as a product of neo-Marxism, took the center stage in the world socialist and anti-imperialist movements. While the so-called dogmatic Marxists continue to assert that, the economy, particularly industry, is the battleground of the working class and capitalists, the pragmatic neo-Marxists recognize the role of politics and culture in maintaining oppressive class relations. Mao Zedong, renowned leader of the Chinese revolution, was considered a neo-Marxist by the Soviets. Mao insisted that his theories were still Marxist to the core. The only difference is that he applied it to the conditions of China, something that was impossible for Marx to consider in his time. Mao is no longer around too but his valuable contribution to the new Left, which influenced neo-Marxists today, regarding the importance of culture in introducing social change remains valid. It is from this vantage point that one of today's most potent cultural instruments, the internet, can be put into scrutiny. For neo-Marxists, it is a cultural battleground of those who desire to see the end of oppressive social structures and those who want to defend it. From this light also, the ascendance of the internet-based social media, particularly social networking, has given the opportunity for progressive forces to arm themselves with a new cultural weapon that is powerful enough to cross national borders and prevail over state restrictions. The Neo-Marxist Theoretical Framework The neo-Marxists consider mass media as an important part of the bourgeois state. They see it is a very powerful tool to promote and defend the interests of the wealthy few and it reflects the inequalities of a society. However, they also see it as a venue to propagate transformative and progressive ideas that can raise the political consciousness of the oppressed peoples. Many times, they have also used it for calls to action, for the mobilization of various sectors to struggle for economic and political reforms, at least, or to advance a total social overhaul with a revolution. The framework for this theory on the media is rooted in the Marxist analysis of class society. Marxism teaches that when an economic infrastructure promotes the interests of a single class, this sector can also have the power to dominate over the political and cultural superstructure. Capitalist relations in production allow the bourgeoisie to accumulate profits enough to expand production, ensure government control, and influence or manipulate culture. The ruling class in production is necessarily the dominant class also in politics in culture. For without its leash on both, its economic interests are placed at risks. Political supremacy grants the ruling class use of state machineries, a strategic factor for its survival. The coercive apparatuses such as the police, the courts, and the armed forces are employed to instill social order that favors the status quo. The deceptive instruments, which comprise all cultural components such as religion, education, and the mass media, are meant to condition the minds of the ruled and oppressed to accept their fate and to comply to the system. In one of his writings, the German Ideology, Marx said that "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production..." (Marx). The mass media is the result of such "mental production". Although its professionals avow neutrality, it remains as subjective as politics. It interprets objective events according from point of view of whoever controls it. It is a conscious instrument in furthering the interests of the class in power. The typical Marxist or neo-Marxist principle that the lines drawn in class society exist in all spheres of human activity precisely affirms this. The print, broadcast, film and online media are, in fact, established for another purpose other than setting the minds of the ruled majority in a society. Capitalists build these as adjuncts to their main commercial and industrial businesses. These exist to provide more profits for the bourgeoisie from subscriptions and from advertisements. Therefore, in such circumstance, it is impossible to declare the mass media as objective and neutral. Its editorial views may often tackle issues that expose the rotten character of the state but these are careful enough not to fuel too much discontent among the population and contribute to the creation of a revolutionary situation. The most it can ask for are reforms, which the bourgeois state may heed to in order to avoid its destruction. However, for as long as the ruling opulent class controls it, it remains primarily their mouthpiece. It will always be ready to print or broadcast items against the Left, especially its radical formations, although it can be gentler to the social democrats, which many neo-Marxists considered as bourgeois apologists. Ralph Miliband, a neo-Marxist political theoretician, said it appropriately; "Most newspapers in the capitalist world have one crucial characteristic in common, namely their strong, often their passionate hostility to anything further to the Left than the milder forms of social democracy, and quite commonly to these milder forms as well." (Miliband) Given this fact about the mass media, the orthodox Marxist may certainly think that to establish a new one that will serve the interests of the majority, the working class struggles must be waged and won first in the economic sphere. Once the economic conditions are favorable for the workers, they can create their own mass media machineries to counter those of the bourgeoisie. V.I. Lenin later proved in leading the Russian revolution to victory that the bourgeois state must be destroyed first before a socialist economy and culture can be realized. On the other hand, Mao Zedong also articulated that culture is also a sphere for battle between the ruling and oppressed classes. He asserted that a revolutionary culture is just as important as revolutionary warfare. In a speech he made to artists and writers during the Anti-Japanese War, he said; "In our struggle for the liberation of the Chinese people there are various fronts, among which there are the fronts of the pen and of the gun, the cultural and the military fronts. To defeat the enemy we must rely primarily on the army with guns. But this army alone is not enough; we must also have a cultural army, which is absolutely indispensable for uniting our own ranks and defeating the enemy." (Mao) It is framework on culture that mass media for those pursuing social transformation has become relevant. The idea is no longer to accept it as an instrument of those in power to maintain their hold on the people. It is to utilize it as well in advancing the cause of the oppressed and exploited. The ruling class and its apologists in the mainstream and commercial media may contemptuously declare efforts of militant and progressive groups as propaganda though, which is consistent with their class character. The forces of change, however, merely dismiss it as an expected defensive statement of reactionaries. There is truth in it, after all. If the reactionaries can use the mass media to sustain a system that favors them, the revolutionaries can also employ it to bolster its efforts in arousing the people, organizing its forces, and mobilizing it effect radical social change. Whether the means of achieving the end is violent or peaceful and evolutionary, the mass media is an important weapon to wield. However, commercial media, in general, will never accommodate the forces of social change with enough space. Doing so will anger its capitalist publishers and drive away the advertisers who certainly provide it with more income than subscriptions. It can be threatened with direct or indirect censorship by the state, which may result into its demise. This has been proven true many times, especially in countries that have been under autocratic regimes such as those in Latin America in the 50's until the 70's. Even long after the time of military rulers and despots has gone, countries ruled by governments with a democratic faade have treated media men, who expose the rottenness of the state and openly criticize its policies, with censorship or worse, death. A case study for this is the Philippines, the US most favored ally in Southeast Asia, and where more journalists have been killed is a shorter span of time than those during the despotic rule of Ferdinand Marcos. (Pinoypress) There may be some media outfits that can provide ample space for progressive and revolutionary forces but these are too few and too seldom that its effects are hardly felt. For this reason, these movements have launched and operated their own media forms to reach out to vast masses. Pamphlets and manifestoes are being handed out in the schools, factories, and communities. Sporadic broadcasts by so-called guerilla radio are being made from locations hidden from the eyes of the state forces. Underground newspapers and magazines are printed and distributed to the populace. However, all these seem to be too limited in reach. The effect of its depth in analyzing social problems and the appropriate use of the language of the masses are minimized because of this particular limitation. While it cannot cover enough of the local population, even more can it not reach out to the sympathetic individuals and organizations abroad. This would have been an opportunity to generate moral and material support for their struggles and hasten the transformation of their societies. The advance of information technology, however, has provided a solution. A new battleground and a host of cultural weapons for the opposing social forces have been found in the internet. The Neo-Marxist Position on Social Media The internet has provided social forces committed to changing class society radically a new potent instrument to propagate its ideas and to mobilize the people for its ends. Ironically, it is also monopoly capitalism's brainchild, a result of its search for solutions to broaden the world market and solve its inherent problem of overproduction. It is the cheapest and most convenient venue for promoting its products. In fact, sales transactions can actually be made through it. At the same time, it remains the most easily available option for groups and individuals who wish to express their views on a variety of subjects to the world. As a result, it can also become a media for those who want to share progressive or radical economic, political, and cultural views to others. This new media has overcome whatever censorship and restrictions on literature, arts, and other forms of expression that are established by nations and states. Because of its novelty, most governments across the globe have yet to create effective measures in quelling the proliferation of dissenting views in the internet. While these may be able to legislate draconian laws and unleash its police and armed forces to run after militant and progressive groups within their borders, they have yet to formulate steps to censor radical and revolutionary ideas being coursed through the internet. Some authoritarian states have illegalized blogs and websites maintained by liberation movements who seek their overthrow. However, those that are just as despotic, due to its class character, but are wearing bourgeois pretensions, cannot afford to install such restrictions. Otherwise, this will fuel the masses' discontent towards them and will put them in an embarrassing position in front of the world. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are the latest craze in the internet. It has aided much in connecting people across the globe in ways unimaginable more than a decade ago. It has also become the melting pot of diverse individuals and organizations that stood for causes related to social change. Facebook's format, for instance, allows one to put into public his political and ideological viewpoints by including it in his profile. Consequently, this made it convenient to search for people and groups that share the same progressive or neo-Marxist ideas. The exchange of literature, information, and practical experiences in their respective struggles has become healthier and more regular. In fact, it has become the most common venue for displaying protests against regimes, which cannot be easily be broadcasted at homelands. However, it is true that these social networks were never meant to be used for fanning the flames of social transformation in a global scale. In fact, its original concept was merely to encourage transnational communication that may lead to friendships despite cultural diversity and distance. While it does sound noble and kind, the result of putting so much hype on these betrays its real intent. One is that just like all other cultural machineries of the ruling class, these social networks are avenues for spreading individualism and hedonism, two systems of thought that can effectively blur people's ability, especially the youth's, to analyze social problems, to seek radical solutions, and to be part in the movement to establish change. Two is that just like the initial purpose for the internet; these are farther-reaching and less costly ways of introducing people abroad to the products, which monopoly capitalist centers such as the US, Japan, and the European Union have had in surplus. These two results can still be argued by big international businesses but they cannot deny the fact that the social network fad has boosted the sales of computers and of internet service providers. Despite these original intentions, individuals, organizations, and movements have taken much advantage of social networks. When Magdalena Kobzova, a Czech cultural theorist, interviewed Geert Lovink of the Institute of Network Cultures, she pointed out correctly that the "big social networking sites are not designed for socially or politically engaged activities, but rather for self-presentation and PR purposes." To this, Lovink replied that "Yes, but you could also say that this is just a social technique. And social techniques can easily move in other directions. That's why I'm pretty optimistic about Facebook and so on. Who talks about Second Life these days Can anyone remember Friendster or Napster They vanished, and were forgotten. But the social techniques that people learned there, the skills and capacities didn't go away. What stays with the users is this 'slight awareness' of other people around them." (Lovink) With this statement, Lovink says that cause-oriented individuals can employ these sites to influence other people and though it may be gone, it has already made a relevant contribution to the struggle for social change. Some scholars, however, point out that social media has a great limitation because many individuals in underdeveloped countries do not have access to the internet. They even point out that these can be used to attack or oppress other social movements. (Wasserman). Nevertheless, many social scientists and scholars believe that online social media, has provide a freer and more democratic facility for those advancing changes in society and that it made a "radical, socio-technical paradigm to challenge the dominant, neo-liberal and technologically determinist model of information and communication technologies." (Preston) Therefore, it insists that although social networking sites may appear shallow and selfish, it can be made socially relevant. Conclusion Social networking sites are effective means of transnational communications. It provides people the privilege of expressing their views freely to the world. The only question is what type of views are to be made available to the internet viewing public. Should it be that reflecting or directly representing the interests of the ruling class of capitalists and, particularly in the pre-industrial and agrarian countries, the landed class Alternatively, should it be that which bears the sentiments and aspirations of the oppressed peoples all over the world. Therefore, the issue of relevance definitely falls on the users themselves. If the users decide to make it as venue to convince people to buy items produced by the centers of monopoly capitalism then it is important in contributing some relief from the crisis often spurred by capitalist overproduction. If the users only sign up in order to widen to a global scale their friends and acquaintances, it may seem only as a pardonable selfish excuse but it for being passive and apathetic, they also contribute to the survival of oppressive and exploitative social structures. However, if the users recognize it as a means to further expose and oppose the rottenness of the society, to educate peoples of the genuine path to social transformation, then it becomes historically relevant. The ruling class may have lauded its creation because it gives them another medium for perpetuating neo-liberal notions. They sincerely believe that with these social networking sites, they can set the minds to favor the status quo, especially those of the youth who are most attached to it. However, the progressive forces have seen it as another tool for counterculture; they have discovered also its potential in shaping the people's opinions in favor of radical changes in every oppressive and undemocratic society. Thus, the ruling class, in developing the internet has just created another weapon that can be used against itself. To paraphrase Marx, it has dug its own cultural graveyard. Bibliography A Bloody Milestone: 100 Journalists Killed in the Philippines since 1986, , Nov. 28, 2009 Lovink, Geert, Latest on Web 2.0, Art and Activism (Interview by Magdalena Kobzova for A2 Magazine), Net Critique, Mao Zedong, Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art, Selected Works of Mao Zedong Volume III, Beijing, 1967 Marx, Karl, The German Ideology, 1846, published in 1932 Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society, 1969, ISBN 0-704-31028-7 Preston, Paschal "Reshaping Communications: Technology, Information and Social Change," London: Sage, 2001 Wasserman, Herman, "Is a New Worldwide Web Possible An Explorative Comparison of the Use of ICTs by Two South African Social Movements," African Studies Review, Volume 50, Number 1 (April 2007), pp. 109-131 Read More