In this new evolution of capitalism, the organizations and the individuals cannot sell their productions directly, because the consumers have changed: they always look for free stuff... More precisely, the consumers understood that the one who diffuses a digital content is not necessarily its author. Facing the impossibility to identify the author (who would deserve to gain some money for this content), the consumer chose not to pay anymore for anything.
The following picture is summing up very nicely the two points of view that existed in the years 2000 about the diffusion of MP3 files with peer-to-peer networks (P2P) : for the musical producers, those networks contributed to ruin the artists, and were accustoming people to communist ideas, while the people who were using those networks kept a good self-esteem, arguing that the CDs were too expensive and that anyway, the musical producers were making huge profits which were not paid back to the artists. It was a dialogue of deaf people (note : "un dialogue de sourds" is a french idiomatic phrase which signifies that a discussion is totally vain).
So, as the consumer is not willing to pay anymore, the goal of the new capitalists is to gain fame by giving away their productions, the idea being to reach large-scale recognition and make profit later, by a way or another, exploiting this fame.
For the Internet firms, this later-stage profit often takes the form of advert spaces (see how Google or Facebook gain money), or even, for the projects who are self-declared collectivists, by selling advertising products. That's the case of the Mozilla Foundation, which sells stuff with Firefox logo, of the "Free Software Foundation" who makes the same with the world's most famous gnu head, or again of your preferred encyclopedia.
For the individuals who are facing the necessity to earn their lives with an intellectual profession related to the Internet (for example, me), many of them try to become famous by giving away their ideas or knowledge, but hope that they could one day make money with this not-so-easy experience (with their CV), or use with their fame to sell books, give conferences or shows. In this last example, I think about those musicians who are rejected by musical editors and who give away their songs on the Internet, hoping that the public will support them financially.
Are we seeing, like Kevin Kelly thinks, the appearance of a new socialism, of a new-type of collectivist society? Clearly, no. This is just an evolution of capitalism, which adapts itself to this new digital world in which informations and tools can be freely copied and diffused without any cost or loss of quality. This capitalism 2.0 is not so different from the previous version : it enriches those who build the infrastructures, who host the informations, or who are at the top of the various companies or projects. It mostly help those who are the most visible and famous, which is proven by the appearance, in the bloggers' world, of the influence concept. The constitution of this capital is made over the labor of those who give away the content at no cost (even if, evidently, those are benefiting from the informations given away by the others).
It's important to understand that, whatever the goal of any human organization, and while the biological needs still exist, true "free of charge", free of back-thought or of any sort of capitalist calculation, is just impossible, just like it is not possible to produce work without energy. About this, and as we say since a long time in France, "each work is worth a salary". The question is : how to pay fairly those who are building the information world? To this question, no organization responds satisfactorily.
Note : the Wired magazine, who published this article about this new socialism mentions, at the bottom of the page :
Wired.com © 2009 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast Digital.
Isn't this the proof that, the more the times are changing, the more everything remains the same?