Need this by 5pm tomm

Sociologists speak of “capitalism” as an economic system which takes private property and wealth as its guiding principles. Capitalism is a particular kind of social structure, or an enduring set of social relations which patterns our behavior and gives meaning to our actions. The capitalist system as we know it today has only been in existence for a few hundred years in comparison to the over 5,000 years of recorded human history. In this sense, capitalism is a very recent social invention, and it should not be held up as the system which most closely mirrors human nature, as we are often told by politicians and those with an interest in preserving the current power structure. To Marx, capitalism emerged as a system out of the ashes of Feudal Europe when the peasantry were forced off of the land that they worked into tenant housing. In order to afford the new “rent” for this housing, this newly emerging class of people were persuaded to enter into factory labor, where they sold their labor for “wages” to the newly created class of bourgeoisie, or capitalist owners. From this point on, the distinction between the owners of the means of production--or capitalists, and the wage laborers---or workers, would sharpen and the wealth inequality between these two groups would grow. Marx’s overall argument was that despite moments within capitalism where the worker may enjoy some meager benefits or an increased standard of living (such as the 1950s boom period of economic history where the middle class grew sharply and wages increased steadily), the long-term trend is for capitalism to force a concentration of wealth and income into fewer and fewer hands. This polarization of wealth would, as he argued, increase to the point where economic “crises” would develop. Massive unemployment would take away the proletarian’s wages and their ability to purchase the products of their fellow workers labor. Mass unemployment coupled with decreased consumption would cause decreased production, economic stagnation, and ultimately businesses would fail. This trend, combined with a rising sense of class consciousness among the poor and working classes would foment into revolutionary potential whereby the workers would seize power from the bourgeoisie class and construct a new economic system where the workers directly controlled the means of production and the working process. In his seminal work, “The Communist Manifesto,“ Marx calls for the working class to organize based on the similarities of their class position, despite differences in race, religion and culture. This new system would require a “direct democracy” (in contrast to the current representative democracy), where all citizens would be directly involved in the political system, which would directly stem from the will of the people.

When judged by the historical record, Marx was both correct and incorrect about capitalism. First, his belief that capitalism would become more unequal over time has been documented as quite accurate. However, his theory predicting the fall of capitalism as a system was not borne out. Later Marxist scholars, who we will discuss further in this chapter, termed as “Western Marxists” attempted to explain new social developments that took place in the 20th century which prolonged the life and stability of capitalism. These include the “culture industries” of entertainment and consumerism, as well as the ability of the government to intervene in the economy to provide some measure of social welfare for the masses of Americans. The debate over the proper amount of government intervention and whether the government intervenes in order to protect “capital” or the worker is ongoing. But it is important to keep in mind that a minimal amount of intervention in the capitalist system may stave off a revolution by the masses by giving them the false hope that they are “progressing.“ Yet this type of intervention may not be enough to allow social mobility or a standard of living consistent with democratic principles. Below I outline the debate over government intervention.

As a system, capitalism is typically centered on what Heiner calls the “free market,” or the belief that government intervention, or regulation in the economy, should be minimal and constantly reduced. If the government intervenes in the economy to a large degree, we are told that the economy will fail and we will move toward a communist/socialist model of economic development, which will drive the U.S. economy into further recession and weaken our global economic standing. Furthermore, we are told that socialism and totalitarianism are synonymous. Thus, a move toward greater regulation, it is argued, will weaken our democratic system. Whether these statements are true is up for debate, but this centers on the evidence found in other Western nations and their much larger intervention in economic relations, and their ability/inability to gain world economic power and maintain democratic governance. To begin, it is important to understand the distinction between socialist or regulatory versions of capitalism, as they exist in continental Europe and communist political systems, which are found in developing nations, such as North Korea. In American political discourse, however, we are not provided with this distinction, and thus most Americans have been lead to believe that countries that intervene in the economic matters of their corporations are not democratic in nature.

To understand the conflation of these two systems, we must look back to the Cold War, which existed after WWII until 1989. The Cold War was a geopolitical struggle between the “Western” capitalist nations and the Soviet Union, which was a communist (and non-democratic system of governance). These two blocs were essentially battling not only for ideological dominance, but military and economic expansion of their own particular worldviews. The third bloc of nations that were not yet part of the “free” Western world, but were also not consolidated under the Soviet Union were called “undifferentiated” and could potentially be swayed in either direction. The Soviets attempted to make gains in the Middle East and lost to the Afghans during the 1980s. The U.S. justification for intervention in Southeast Asia in conflicts such as the Vietnam War was based on the “Domino Effect,” which was the fear that Soviet Communism must be stopped before it overtook new regions of the world which were of strategic importance to the Anglo-American capitalist system. When Cuba was aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, the fear of conflict with a nation so close in proximity to the U.S. brought the American people to associate any sort of “socialized” system (including medicine) with Soviet Communism, which in effect, meant the loss of our democratic system.

Many famous political and Hollywood figures spoke out against socialized systems for the fear that America would be driven toward Soviet communism and our citizens would lose all political and social freedoms. In 1961, Ronald Reagan, former Hollywood icon and then Governor of California, participated in a campaign called Ronald Reagan Speaks out Against Socialized Medicine. Most notable about this campaign was not the fact that it was almost completely funded by the American Medical Association (AMA), one group who would stand to lose from a socialized medical system, but that Reagan did not distinguish between the “communist” system that America was engaged in conflict with and the democratically governed systems of Europe that have robust social programs yet enjoy all the freedoms of Americans (and perhaps more). Reagan warned Americans that if there was a move toward socialized medicine, then “behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism.” Reagan then mistakenly states that “we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

From the 1960s until today, Americans were “warned” about socialism and the dangers that it would bring about. Meanwhile, the development of social-democratic systems in Europe continued throughout this period. Nations across Europe, but more specifically in Scandinavia, began to regulate the ravaging effects of capitalism. This included innovative plans, such as national healthcare, larger welfare schemes, wealth transfer and anti-poverty programs, larger subsidies for childcare, more extensive family leave policies, mandatory workplace regulations on safety and working hours, restrictions on downsizing and unemployment, among several others. As Robert Heiner claims, “we need to remember that socialism and totalitarianism are not equivalent and that European and Japanese governments are democratically elected. Their people have freely gone to the polls and chosen government leaders who would step in to moderate the harmful effects of the market. Though perhaps these countries have fewer individuals who go from rags to riches, they do not have the radical inequalities in income and wealth that exist in the United States. Their workers are less threatened by the possibility of massive layoffs, and if they are laid off, workers and their families do not face the same degree of financial upheaval as their American counterparts” (2006:42).

The overwhelming evidence suggests that citizens in these nations are afforded an overall better standard of living than the average American. However, Americans are mislead to believe in the façade of the “American Dream,” or the ideology that as long as one works hard and places their nose to the grindstone, they will achieve success, often referred to as a “meritocracy”-- or a system of privilege based solely upon work ethic. If this were true, then the “freedom” from government intervention that only Americans experience would be a fare trade-off because they would be able to achieve success through hard work alone. In reality, the system does not operate under the principles of a meritocracy. Regardless of how hard one works, the majority of Americans remain in their parent’s social class position. Furthermore, more Americans are in poverty than in any other Western, industrialized nation. A smaller percentage of Americans belong to the “middle class” than in previous generations. The likelihood of an American born into a poor or working class family of rising to the middle class or higher has weakened over the last 30 years and is much lower than in Europe. Despite the fact that Americans are more educated than ever before and spend a greater amount on college education, the average worker’s wages have stagnated (when adjusting for inflation) since the 1970s. Finally, the total amount of wealth owned by the top 5% of Americans in comparison to the wealth owned by the bottom 20% of Americans (a much larger group of individuals) has more than tripled since 1970. These trends signal that the American Dream is dead---at least the classical notion that work ethic alone will bring about a middle class lifestyle.

If Americans do not experience the standard of living that they have come to expect, they do experience, we are told, a very high degree of political freedom and democracy. “Democratization,” the political sociology term for the level of democracy that a nation has gained, has been documented across hundreds of countries and over time. The World Values Survey, for example, has presented data on democratization to help us understand which nations are more democratic than others, as well as the social and cultural factors that promote democratic governance. Based on these measurements, it is clear that the U.S. is not the most democratic system on earth. However, American democracy is stronger than most nations documented across the world. The 2010 Democracy Index ratings show the Scandinavian and Northern European nations of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland as the top four democracies. The United States is ranked at number 17, which is near the bottom of Western, industrialized nations. Interestingly, the countries that have the highest level of economic regulation and intervene in the free market of capitalism have the highest level of democracy. This evidence smacks Ronald Regan’s notion of socialism and totalitarianism in the face! The more socialized nations, which offer national healthcare and larger welfare programs are also the most democratic, which signals that the citizens of these nations are demanding this particular form of intervention. Their democracies are “responsive” in that the political-economy is structured around the desires of the citizenry. Most notable is the larger “freedom” that these citizens experience in the political system. By freedom, I am referring to the freedom to choose candidates that are outside of the 2-party, capitalist system (or what Chomsky refers to as the two sides of the business party!). In these nations, there are numerous viable political parties of all stripes--many of which are defined as socialist or “leftist” in nature. In America, as previously mentioned, the rivalry between Democratic and Republican parties centers on social value issues---such as guns, god and gays, but largely ignores key differences on economic policies.

When looking globally, however, the story of all 162 nations measured under the democratization rubric becomes much more complex. Broadly speaking, societies that are more capitalist, measured by open-markets and a higher GDP per capita, are more democratic. This evidence suggests that the basic shift toward industrialization and a capitalist system has profound effects on the development of a democratic system in a particular nation. For example, in regions where economic development is the lowest (such as Latin-America, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa), the vast majority of political systems are defined as either “flawed democracies,” “hybrid regimes” or “authoritarian regimes.” In Western civilization, where development is the greatest and capitalism has taken shape, the majority of political systems are defined as “full democracies.” Overall then, the global picture that emerges is that capitalism is healthy for democratic governance---up to a certain point! Capitalism, when left purely to the free-market, and devoid of any government regulation will actually have a counter-effect and reduce the effective level of democracy. This is precisely what has emerged in America. The key to understanding why the American democratic system has far surpassed Algeria (ranked 125th globally) but lags behind 16 other European nations lies in the peculiar formation of our political economy, which I will explain below.

The American “one-party” system has serious implications for its citizens livelihood and standard of living. True political and economic freedom in America would be defined by a multitude of alternative and viable political parties who entertain different notions of how capitalism should be structured. As long as Americans have one party to choose from, the lack of regulation in capitalism will continue and the social problems of poverty and inequality will remain. To be precise though, one must understand that capitalism can still exist as an economic system, and private property can be upheld (within reason), while also injecting a healthy does of corporate regulation. This can be accomplished without completely transforming into a socialized system. The barrier to this type of change is the formation of what Richard Katz and Peter Mair call the “cartel party”---or a party system based on the collusion of two or more parties designed to protect themselves from the possibility of smaller political parties gaining momentum. Within the cartel party, the goals of politics become self-referential, professional and technocratic, and what little inter-party competition remains becomes focused on the efficient and effective management of the polity. The election campaigns that are conducted by cartel parties are capital-intensive, professionalized and centralized (Katz and Mair, 1995). The cartelization of American political life implies that the citizenry envision nothing outside of the cartel system, that Americans battle over social and cultural value differences that the two parties espouse, and that these two sub-parties share the power position equally over time, as to present the surface appearance of competition while amassing extreme wealth to the point that smaller, alternative parties with different platforms become non-viable. This process occurs through the campaign-financing scheme that has developed in America.

It is important to recognize the power of corporate interests in shaping social and economic policy through campaign financing and lobbying. As Douglas Kellner claims, “The most powerful corporate forces have tightened their control of both the state and the media in the interests of aggressively promoting a probusiness agenda at the expense of other groups. The consequences of neoliberalism and its program of deregulation, tax breaks for the wealthy, military buildup, cutback of social programs, and the widening class division are increasingly evident in the new millennium (qtd in Heiner, 2006: 183). As Robert Heiner notes, there is no hope of electing a presidential contender who isn’t personally wealthy, beholden to wealthy special interests, or both. The primary reason that the cartel party remains in power is that smaller political parties with alternative and progressive visions of economic regulation will not receive any media or public attention due to lack of funding. It must be noted that creating a publicly financed election system, whereby all individuals with good ideas and a desire to serve their communities will have a chance at becoming political leaders, will only strengthen our democracy. Currently however, only those candidates who are part of the cartel party and are financed by large corporate interests have the chance of being recognized. On the off chance that a non-corporate sponsored candidate receives a certain degree of national attention, the mainstream (corporate controlled) media outlets are sent out to perform “hit jobs” on these candidates, as to ensure no progressive change can take place.

A current example of this phenomenon is the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul from Texas. As of December 2011, Paul is polling in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place among the Iowa voters for the upcoming Iowa primary caucus (which more than 80% of the time is considered a litmus test for future presidential nomination). The mainstream media, including Fox News, Politico and others has been sent out to attack Paul in order to discredit his viability. As Journalist Paul Watson notes, “despite the fact that two out of the last three winners of the Iowa primary have gone on to successfully capture the Republican nomination, the political class have decided that Paul doesn’t deserve the opportunity to build the same kind of momentum, and that a victory for him in Iowa, would “do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses, according to Politico” (2011: 1). Governor Branstad of Iowa has already preemptively told voters to ignore Paul if he wins and to instead focus on who comes in second place. What does this attack on Paul center on? Is this particular candidate so dangerous to American prosperity that he should be marginalized prior to the election? There are three important issues where Paul strays from the mainstream cartel party line.

The first issue, which arouses concern amongst anyone in the political class is Paul’s perspective on the September 11th attacks. Dr. Paul has gone on the record on several national radio shows and media outlets stating that 9/11 must be reopened for investigation. While Paul has not officially allied himself with the “truther” movement, he has made several public statements where he claims that 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to launch wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, he has claimed that the attacks were used as a reason to implement the Patriot Act and crackdown on civil liberties (see Watson, 2011). In fact, Paul has openly (and correctly) claimed that the Patriot Act was written many, many years before 9/11. This particular stance on 9/11 is threatening to the power elite in America because it suggests that: a) those in the mainstream Republic party were corrupted to the point that they deceived the American people in order to initiate international aggression leading to the death of roughly one million Iraqi citizens, and b) special interests (in this case, the military-industrial complex, to use President Eisenhower’s terminology) have infiltrated the center of the party to the point that no politicians can be trusted.

The second issue where Paul diverges from the mainstream is his stance on war and international conflict. Paul has outlined a massive slashing of military spending and the removal of U.S. military personnel from all foreign entanglements. He promotes a protectionist philosophy of military power, whereby the military need only be large enough to protect from domestic attack but should not be used for “nation building.” This philosophy threatens the private interests that have a stake in future conflict, such as the ensuing drama with Iran that President Obama and Republican candidates continually allude to. Considering that over 50% of the federal yearly budget is spent on military-related costs (which is more than all other industrial nations combined), its no wonder that Paul is being demonized prior to any official ballot being cast. The military-industrial complex has such a stranglehold on the political system, that once Vice President, Dick Cheney received deferred stock option compensation valued in the millions of dollars. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton until 2000. Halliburton and its subsidiaries received the majority of “no-bid” government contracts for rebuilding the destruction caused by the U.S. bombing of Iraq. Considering that Cheney was largely responsible for the strategy in Iraq and was part of the Bush administration before and during the conflict, we can conclude that this represents a major conflict of interest. This conflict arises from a sitting vice-president profiting from the conflict that he orchestrated. Ending international conflict, regime-change and nation-building as strategies puts these interests at a serious disadvantage and candidate Paul is the most outspoken of the candidates about the excessive special interest stronghold over Washington policymaking.

Dr. Paul’s view of the Federal Reserve banking system and its role in financial policy is clearly the most detrimental to his candidacy, which has been documented by his persistent media demonization. Paul is outside of both sub-parties within the cartel system when it comes to financial policy. Paul most closely aligns himself with a “constitutionalist” version of banking, whereby the private Federal Reserve Bank must be either audited and/or abolished completely. This private banking system was only set up in 1913 and was not set out in the American constitution. In 2009, Paul introduced HR 1207, claiming that the Federal Reserve must be audited and was responsible for the current economic depression, which was the largest since the great depression of the 1930s. Paul criticizes both the former Republican administration for their part in this current economic crisis as well as the current Democratic administration for their complicity in the dominance of the Federal Reserve in dictating financial policy. This only lends more strength to the claim that the cartel party is in full force under the Obama administration. For example, current Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner was once the chair of the Federal Reserve system and was appointed in a bold move by Obama to continue the banker “bailout” plan initially triggered by the previous Bush administration as they left office. Both McCain and Obama in their 2008 presidential campaigns were given more special interest money from Wall Street interests alone than the value of their combined lifetime congressional salaries. Furthermore, all members of Congress receive more contributions from Wall Street and private donors than their lifetime salaries. The dominance of special interests in the American political system is beyond comprehension, and without a counterbalance, such as a strengthening of the general “public” interest, future economic policies will be geared toward the destruction of the middle class and the concentration of wealth into the hands of the top 1% of individuals and corporations. If Dr. Paul has the interest of the average American at heart, but is not given a chance to represent their interests due to his lack of media exposure and minimization within the media (which is caused by his lack of corporate financial backing), then we must entertain the idea that the democratic process has been diminished, to use Theda Skocpol’s terminology.

Sociologists who study the political-economy closely are keenly aware of the structure of the American political system and understand what needs to change in order to create a more democratic system. As critical sociologists point out, it is the existence of a “false consciousness” regarding the operation of the political system that prevents any radical change. As mentioned above, however, the barrier to consciousness-raising is American apathy, which is driven by the rise of what Adorno calls the “culture industries.” To the extent that Americans can be distracted from the true nature of the economic system through endless consumerism, sports, entertainment and self-improvement, inequality and wealth concentration will only increase. But to a certain extent, inequality can only heighten to a threshold where even average Americans will eventually take notice.

The current “Occupy Wallstreet” movements are a manifestation of this discontent. Capitalism may have reached a tipping point. This particular movement is becoming global in nature and has organized nonviolent protests in America and other nations. At these protests, signs were observed proclaiming the “awakening” or consciousness-raising of everyday citizens. For example, one sign read, “Dear 1%, we fell asleep for awhile. Just woke up. Sincerely, the 99%.” With hundreds of cities currently involved in the movement, it is tempting to suggest that it may have staying power and particular demands may be met. But what are the specific demands of this social movement, and can these demands be realized without a complete revolution against the capitalist world system? Sociologist of the global economy, Immanuel Wallerstein suggests that the movement is really a set of overlapping movements with no direct strategy or demands. However, one consistent theme is the protest against radical “polarization”- or economic inequality. In America, the movement is centered on the critique of Wall Street dominance in U.S. economic policy. That this has taken place during a Democratic presidential administration, under the helm of a President who ran on the supposed platform of creating more economic equality, transferring capital from rich to poor, and reversing previous policies that produced greater polarization, is striking. If the Democrats were truly different from Republicans on economic policy, then the movement would not have emerged under Obama’s watch! This confirms the collusion of the two parties under the cartelized system, and also confirms the fact that politicians within both parties make outrageous claims during the campaign cycle, yet typically do not adhere to these policies once elected.

Under Bush Jr., for example, claims were made while campaigning in 2000 that “we should not engage in nation-building.” This critique was leveled at then Presidential hopeful John McCain for his more hawkish view on foreign policy. Yet within weeks of Bush’s presidency, and during his very first National Security meeting in January 2001, cabinet members, such as Treasury Secretary O’Neill, spoke of Bush’s persistence on “regime change” in Iraq and “Bush looking for any possible justification to remove Saddam Hussein.” That this occurred a full 9 months prior to the 9/11 attacks, which were the supposed justification for regime change in Iraq, is quite dramatic. Obama’s statements while campaigning had the general tone of a future President who would operate an anti-Wallstreet administration, and focus heavily on what Obama called “Mainstreet” (or the middle class sector of America). If elected, Obama promised to reverse the previous waves of elite and corporate tax cuts rolled out by Bush Jr. from 2001 to 2008. In reality, Obama reauthorized the same tax cuts once again and constructed the most Wall Street dominated cabinet in Presidential history. Occupy WallStreet as a movement may be onto something if they have realized that both political parties serve the interests of capital and WallStreet.

The main barrier to any real change is a unified message between these sub-movements. With ideological dispersion and a “leaderless” structure, it is difficult to create momentum across America. A second barrier is the size of the movement and its ability/inability to force any policy changes within government. Without significant change in the campaign finance and lobbying schemas as they currently operate, any demands from occupy Wall street groups will not be met. As Heiner (2006) claims, recent campaign reform legislation proposed and voted on by congress has been largely cosmetic. For example, the “McCain-Feingold” bipartisan campaign reform legislation of 2003 placed limits on certain forms on financial contributions and regulates campaign advertisements. However, since this legislation the amount of corporate funding and lobbying group activity has only increased exponentially. Furthermore, in 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a key component of the legislation, essentially allowing corporations to spend unlimited money to support politicians of their choosing. The problem is that because the necessary changes must take place within the system, it requires that politicians vote for legislation that support the working and middle classes as opposed to the power elite. But if these same politicians remain beholden to corporate special interests, then expecting any change in legislation is a utopian ideal. Any real campaign finance reform must be voted on and authorized by congress--the very same group with the most to lose from this reform. Expecting congress to essentially police themselves is akin to asking a corrupt police department to investigate themselves. Of course, in order for any real investigation to occur, an outside entity would need to be involved. The problem with governmental reform, is that the only outside group to exercise control or oversight over the political system is the PEOPLE!

The Occupy Wallstreet movements understand this basic fact and see the need for the citizenry to be engaged and send congress a message that they must change the ways in which they vote for legislation. The idea here is that if the congress is not responsive to the will of the general public, then they will be removed from office during the next election cycle. Regardless of how much special interest money is funneled into a political campaign, the democratic process still allows for the people to decide on the fate of ones political future. But again, without any real campaign finance reform, the next set of candidates who espouse to represent “the people” (or in Obama’s case, “Mainstreet”) will be cut from the same cloth as the previous leaders who were removed from office. So there appears to be a vicious cycle operative here. The system is structured as to not allow any fundamental change in the way the political economy operates, which would stem from the people. Perhaps this is why America is only ranked 17th on the global democracy rating!

Assuming that there are future politicians who represent the interests of the general public in place and ready to run for office, there still exists a third barrier, which is perhaps the most problematic. What Occupy Wallstreet as a set of overlapping social movements fails to comprehend is that when they speak of the 99%--or the vast majority of the public who are part of the working and lower classes who would benefit from the aims of the movement, they assume that all 99% of the public understand the message, are actively part of the movement and are democratically engaged. In reality, the current membership of the movement includes far less than 1% of the general public who supposedly represent the entire 99%! What we have then is 1% of working class individuals battling against the top 1% (or what C. Wright Mills terms, the “power elite”). When seen from this perspective, it is a losing proposition for an essentially powerless group to fight a well-financed, and well-connected group, such as the power elite. But as I’ve mentioned earlier in this book and as critical sociologists point out, the barriers to organizing a true 99% majority in a social movement are numerous and substantial. First, there are the culture industries, which distract us from the true nature of the system and keep us working hard and consuming. As Ben Agger contends, “people develop false needs for endless shopping, trivial entertainment, and the acquisition of status symbols…Marcuse calls needs ‘false’ that are imposed on the self by the culture industries and not freely arrived at through rational reflection. Selves lose the intellectual resources, the time, the space for rational reflection. [Our] lives are so ‘administered’ that [our] needs flow almost immediately out of television screens, magazines and now the internet into our minds and bodies, which are ‘totally mobilized’ for the project of endless shopping” (2004: 106). It is not coincidental that the culture industries distract us from radical change. The power elite organize this system to keep us busy while inequality grows beyond comprehension.

High speed communications and internet technologies represent a dialectic of progress and problem. As Marxist and critical theorists argue, any technological innovation contains the potential for both good and bad. Technologies can either liberate us from enslavement or further enslave us. The potential for the internet to be used as a tool for organizing grassroots movements and spreading knowledge about the true nature of the system is enormous. The development of “alternative” and fringe media outlets represents the growing trend away from corporate controlled media and biased information that serves the interests of the power elite. But on the other hand, the internet has been documented to be primarily used, by both men and women, as a means to satisfy the self, either through self-improvement or sexual gratification. To the extent that the internet is used by men as a means to satisfy their libidos and partake in the sexual objectification of women, it is a distraction from true consensus-building and further distances male and female culture, thus leading to weakened opportunity for radical change among both halves of the population. Women, like men, also use the internet for self-gratification. As the primary consumers of social media outlets, such as Facebook, as well as the majority of participants on internet dating sites, such as Eharmony and Match.com, women see the internet as a means to connect and discover themselves through heightened communication. In addition to this, women also use the internet for online shopping and increased consumption of goods and services. While this might appear to be liberating on the surface, these acts merely reinforce the dominant capitalist system, by promoting false needs and the false association of happiness with instant communication and consumption. How many women use Facebook to talk about political issues or to organize a rally or protest? How many women talk to their close friends and family about the Occupy Wallstreet movement and what it means for our society? In reality, women are using communication technologies to post pictures of themselves at the latest bar or club, or to provide instant “updates” as to which coffee shop they happened to frequent. If this is defined as true liberation from the extreme inequalities of capitalism, then we have a long way to go!

While Facebook has garnered 200 million American subscribers and dominates the digital landscape, it does not, by any means, represent a technological utopia in that it is not being used to build a stronger democracy. Meanwhile, the development of truly alternative versions of media and information have mushroomed alongside these social media sites. Operating outside of the corporate dominated media control grid, sites like drudgereport.com bring together alternative visions of democracy and the spread of information. Drudge is considered a master site, with more internet traffic than Facebook and Twitter combined (see Indvik, 2011). As an aggregator site, Drudge compiles news and information from hundreds of other alternative media sites, such as Infowars.com. These smaller sites attempt to expose the “truth” about government corruption and reveal the inner workings of our political-economy without the slant of corporate control. As an example, Infowars.com has captured the sentiment precisely, as their running slogan is “because there’s a war on for your mind” (perhaps alluding to the fact that the wars of the 21st century will be information wars, not fought on the traditional battlefield, but in the minds of global citizens). This particular site provides information outside of what site leader and journalist Alex Jones calls “the corporate controlled left-right paradigm.” Operating outside of mainstream party politics, Infowars provides stories on issues ranging from exposing government sponsored terrorism, the banking system collapse, international war and conflict, to the developing “police state” (or the crackdown on civil liberties since 2001). Infowars sister website, also linked on the drudge report, called prison planet.com proclaims that “the truth will set you free,” and also provides supposedly non-biased information. While postmodern sociologists would criticize the claim that any media outlet is devoid of bias and perspective, this particular site does provide Americans and global civil society a chance to see information regarding current events outside of the one-party political system. One of the fundamental stumbling blocks that these sites have experienced, as is also evident in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, is that they have been marginalized and often discredited.

In 2010, for example, it was documented that the largest internet search engine, Google.com, had blacklisted both info wars.com and prison planet.com from their popular searches. As Paul Watson claims, “in a damning new lurch toward web censorship, Google’s news aggregator has blacklisted Prisonplanet and Infowars despite the fact that both sites are internationally known and now attract more traffic than many mainstream media websites, while Google-owned Youtube has frozen the Alex Jones channel based on a spurious complaint about showing Wikileaks footage that has been carried on hundreds of other Youtube channels for months. After carrying our content for years, Google News last week purged Prison planet and Infowars from its aggregator system, ensuring that our stories no longer appear alongside the likes of CNN and Foxnews in a frightening early salvo in the move toward a tiered internet that favors large corporations while independent voices are strangled” (2010: 1). This bold statement by Google appears to send the message to democratic citizens that the internet is not a free and open place where dialogue can take place, but a “sanitized” version of reality, where corporate sponsored media powerhouses have greater rights than do alternative media outlets. This example of media censorship and corporate control is strikingly similar to the operation of our political system, whereby corporate control over campaign financing ensures that only certain candidates with a probusiness/promilitary agenda receive adequate exposure. If technology, as Marx claims, possesses an inherent ability to liberate or enslave, depending on our use of this technology, it appears that the internet is no longer the key to our “salvation” as a democracy. Does “Big Brother” know no boundaries?