Trotsky/Morozov: cyberactivism and paleo-conservatism

Posted on August 4, 2011


The prolonged crisis of Capitalism  in the core countries of the “globalized” economy has an ideological by-product in the extremist political rhetoric. Although it would be more appropriate to speak of the descent into barbarism by the publishers of the Right and the mass media.

Thus, any attempt to sustain the social protection of population at risk (ie, to tax the rich) is furiously attacked as an alleged attempt to impose Communist dictatorships.

When that media terrorism catch individuals labile enough as to act in self-defense against the “imminent danger,”  we get confronted with disastrous episodes like Norwegian slaughter or the American movement of the “Tea Party”, which, thought less spectacular is generating events of extremely serious consequences; such as dragging the Republican Party to an irresponsible suicide policy whose effects at the medium term will be felt worldwide.

So it is interesting to record the intellectual output of sectors “paleo-conservatives” able to confront the social reality from its own perspective, without falling into the extreme wing delusions.

This note (in Spanish) records the warnings by Evgeny Morozov (an exile from the post-Soviet Belarus) against the idealization of the transforming democratizing power of social networking (here is a sound critique). Faced with the excitement generated by the “Facebook revolutions” in Tunisia and Egypt, the columnist for Foreign Policy reminds us that for these movements got under way, there were previous material reasons like the suddenly soaring food prices and unemployment of skilled labor sectors (generated -let’s not forget- by imbalances in financial speculation). For the same reason he criticizes the ingenuity with which they were faced the “color revolutions” against regimes such as Iran and Belarus itself, which also were able to use social networks to detect and stop their opponents.

What he does not say (but it is implicit in his approach) is that these authoritarian regimes maintain a certain degree of state social insurance against the threat of disintegration brought by the unrestricted opening to financial capitalism promised by the evangelists of freedom.