The New Socialism – or better

Two prominent articles signal the coming rhetorical and perhaps practical wave. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative opposition in London, writes in The Guardian – A new politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power:

“…reverse the collapse in personal responsibility that inevitably follows this leeching of control away from the individual and the community into the hands of political and bureaucratic elites. We can reverse our social atomisation by giving people the power to work collectively with their peers to solve common problems. We can reverse our society’s infantilisation by inviting people to look to themselves, their communities and wider society for answers, instead of just the state. Above all, we can encourage people to behave responsibly if they know that doing the right thing and taking responsibility will be recognised and will make a difference.

So I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power: from the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities; from the EU to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy. Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power from the elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street. Yes, as many Guardian commentators in their contributions to A New Politics have argued, that means reforming parliament. But it means much more besides. The reform that’s now required – this radical redistribution of power – must go through every public institution, not just parliament.”

Who is writing for Cameron? I mean “central objective” is “decentralization”- for real! But you get the drift. Kevin Kelly chimes in – Wired – The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online:

“I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there’s rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.

When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it’s not unreasonable to call that socialism.”

These people are doing great disservice to their idea by calling this “socialism”, as they themselves pointed out, the very brand for the extreme centralized command and control. In truth, as Douglas Rushkoff argued, these ideas predate Renaissance. See the first volley for his upcoming book:

http://www.vimeo.com/4655092

I have an untainted name for the new movement. Let’s brand this Suprematism. The name was invented by Kasimir Malevich for his art, to my knowledge has not etymological meaning and even contains a subliminal reference to the Dark Ages. Malevich said: “I felt only night within me and it was then that I conceived the new art, which I called Suprematism.”