Market Ideology

Marxism ideology operates within the principle that the bourgeoisie (those at the source of the economy) is who controls society because they have the capital to make their ideas heard and widespread; therefore, their ideas will be principle ones. And since for-profit companies recognize that people are not all sheep who will unquestionably follow the word of one person and accept it as fact, it is in their best interest to make their ideas seem like common sense. In Trevor Scholtz’s article Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0, found here online: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945,

 he explores the various myths surrounding the term Web 2.0, its branding and its function as a marketplace. He mentions the article Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On written by Tim O’Reilley and John Batelle, in which O’Reilley describes Web 2.0 as such:

“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications  & [are] delivering software as a continually–updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and & deliver rich user experiences.”

The “newness” that the term web 2.0 encompasses gets us talking about it. This has been evident with other technologies, such as the launching of the iPod, which in essence was a remix of the transistor radio of the 50s. It was given a new name, shiny colours, some hype and millions invested in it. So, although the capabilities associated with the advent of web 2.0 can be seen in the internet of the 90’s, O’Reiley plays the “old internet” down by referring to it as one-sided-content-web whereas now we have an new, improved internet driven by user-generated content. People like to hear the words “new” and “improved.” Scholtz goes through various utilities of the web that have been commonly associated with the term web 2.0 and demonstrates that they are anything but new: from wikis, social media, blogs and folksonomies originating as far back as the 80s. Web 2.0 has seen the advent of branding all of these things. Therefore, we think of Web 2.0 as a brand. When one universal definition or function for something is accepted by the majority, we forget that it may have various utilities not apparent in the dominant ideology.

“By defining what is associated with the Web today as common sense, it directs the imagination of its future”

Today, ordinary citizens are adding value to an online platform by contributing ideas, thoughts, creative invention and hours of our time editing, reviewing and writing. Yes, we are adding value to this platform: monetary value. Where is this money going? Into the pockets of the companies who are controlling the content that takes up most of the web-space.  Would you work for free? This is (commonly) not volunteer work for the greater good of humanity-I’m talking about working for a profit gaining company (usually in entertainment) while having our skills and intellect exploited for their monetary gain. We are voluntarily doing this because we are at the same time doing something we enjoy. In return for our labour we get pleasure and the sense that we are rebelling against mainstream culture.  So...to reference Matt Mason’s book The Pirate’s Dilemma:  is youth reinventing capitalism? Yes we are. We are not democratizing business; we are encouraging a new type of capitalism. In this capitalistic society, we actually help put more money into the pockets of the “powers that be”.  

As Scholtz points out, with this newfound power we hold, we are at the same time encouraging and even strengthening the dynamic of having small affluent and influent minority groups controlling society by creating the possibility of having fewer and fewer people get richer and richer using the very many people who make less and less. Contrary to what seems to be the only rewards for our work (profit, pleasure, enjoyment, and consumerism), this is not the only outcome from our laborious hours spent contributing...there are so many more possibilities. Scholtz quotes a Yale Law School professor speaking about the potential we have in contributing for social and civic good-which just does not seem possible when operating within a “market-space”, which seems to occupy such a big portion of the Web.

“On the one hand, the social milieus of the Web allow for increased autonomy and “the practiced experience of democracy, justice and development, a critical culture, and community.” On the other hand, this clearly does not happen on “non–market” grounds as Yale Law School professor Yochai Benkler claims [34]. “Non–market behavior,” for Benkler, denotes that market interests do not drive the motivations of users who participate. Conversely, the context of social life online is always entrenched in market relationships, no matter if users are motivated by profit.”

There are so many other positive outcomes besides mere entertainment value being made and built upon, yet we are not taking advantage of our full potential because of the perceived limitations. There are ways to change this. The future of the internet is not doomed to ad plastered pages, a market place for business to thrive. Not-for-profit organizations are fighting this dynamic with growing numbers of people; such as Adbusters http://www.adbusters.org/  who describe themselves as this:

“We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.”

Facts about the purpose/use/lucrativeness of new technology are often spun, and we develop a skewed vision about a particular invention's primary function. As for web 2.0, we now think it is common sense that the web is used to further business and has become corporately run--and therefore can only mainly be used for economic gain. If we begin to look at the web as it potentially has the power to be, we can turn it around for the betterment our society and to our own personal benefit--leaving space for social gain. Social stability, health care, employment, political protest and change...the web can be a platform for people to obtain the information that will allow them to vote informatively and decide what kind of culture/society they want to live in-among other things.