On Politics and the Internet

[TheMaroon]

On November 8, 1960 John F. Kenedy defeated Richard M Nixon in the presidential race. Kenedy had the advantage of looking better on camera than Nixon. So while Nixon dominated the airways, Kenedy mastered the channels, to be able to see him let Americans know better this catholic from Boston. Television was a moderately new thing, so people wished to watch rather than to hear.

In 2008 president Barack Husseine Obama, defeated John McCain in the presidential race. His advantage, the internet, ever since about 1998 the Internet has been growing alongside humanity. Almost every house hold had an Internet enabled device by 2008, and so all the Obama campaign staff had to do was advertise on some of the more popular sites. While that wasn't the entire reason Obama won, it was a contributor, and it is why more young people supported Obama, because info about him was readily available at the click of a mouse.

Imagine if Eugene Debbs (as far as i know the only man to ever run as a socialist in america) had had the Internet or television or even the radio broadcasts, would he not have been more popular among the people, and those who desperately needed a president who would support the working class and if not oppress the bourgeoise at least suppress them?

The purpose of this thread is to basically say that, as time advances, and technology withit, the first politician to utilize the power of our growing technologies will more than likely be the victorious one. Knowledge is power, and technology is its supplier.

[adipocere]

It assumes that people who use the internet now are as sophisticated as those even just a few years ago. The mass corporatization of the internet, especially in the last few years, has artificially driven the content IQ down to about the level of mouth breathing (http://www.buzzfeed.com/). Certainly there are great alternative sources for information, but it's still for an audience that seeks it out.

People might be exposed to slightly more controversy but if there is any critical thinking going on, its well drowned out by the establishment then flushed into gutters like Infowars.

[Kingfish]

Technology is very important but I still believe that the material conditions and the message itself is far more important. Even if he had a crackerjack media team I doubt McCain or Romney would have been able to capture the youth vote like Obama did simply because of their message.

Accordingly I believe it would have made very little difference whether or not Debbs had access/ made better use of to technology as the material conditions for socialist or revolutionary change just were not present then. Had he been alive and capable during the Great Depression then it would be a very different case. The success of Father Coughlin (arguably the first radio shock-jock) really did show just how powerful the radio could be under the right conditions.

Relying on how the message is delivered rather than what the message is and how it relates to the prevailing conditions is too utopian for my liking.

[Q]

The purpose of this thread is to basically say that, as time advances, and technology withit, the first politician to utilize the power of our growing technologies will more than likely be the victorious one. Knowledge is power, and technology is its supplier.
This and the question itself is simply a truism: Of course people get more time to explain their points with the development of technology. What do you want to be discussed?

[RedMaterialist]

This and the question itself is simply a truism: Of course people get more time to explain their points with the development of technology. What do you want to be discussed?

In order to use the internet to achieve political goals you have to use social networking, such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. One person connects with two, who connect with four, etc. They say Pres. Obama's team had an extremely sophisticated and effective social networking program in addition to his polling and phone contacts with potential voters. Romney, on the other hand, apparently failed to understand the importance of the use of computer technology.

Marx noted that Aristotle said that man is not only a political animal, but also a social animal (or vice versa, I'm not sure.) Using social networking via the internet is probably replacing the one-to-one political contact associated with previous politics.

However, social networking with Facebook or Twitter is going to be extremely difficult for socialists and communists. Anyone who has ever had an anonymous internet argument with right wing fanatics knows they would track you down and kill you (literally) if they could. They are fascist down to the heels of their boots and are perfect examples of what Arendt said about Eichmann: they are completely sane but they don't know the difference between right and wrong.

It is for good reason that RevLeft doesn't link to Facebook. Without social networking political action through the internet is not going to be effective. Marx said in the CM that is was high time for Communists to openly...publish their views. However, the CM was not openly published until 1870. Not much has changed.

[RedHal]

if your idea of revolutionary politics is to get your fav leftist candidate elected to the bourgeois state then you can tweet all you like.

But the revolution will not be televised, tweeted nor facebooked, we all know how close these corporate institutions are to the intelligence state.

[SyndAnon]

Obama won the 2008 election..with social media...