The Revolution Can’t Be Digitized
Leftist America has a very specific phenomenon going on amongst the online masses, and that is the absolute obliteration and paralysis of real action. Real protest. True revolution. Take this response to protests in Ecuador, for example:
The replies are irony at its finest:
“Twitter fingers” (feel free to insert any social platform in that term) has a grasp on those most well-meaning, and equally on those who hold opinions that make well meaning people feel an alarming amount of despair. This leads us to occupying the same virtual space - and that’s where things get weird. Never-before-seen types of weird.
You see, when you live in a country where the Internet is the most radical space to occupy— with a simultaneously close yet detached observation of those against your definition of progress, who also boldly stand in their radical opinion through protection from somatic accountability— that’s where you tend to get stuck. It makes you feel alive. As if you are confronting those people and the systems they support, in real life. Meanwhile, you really exist parallel to each other, swinging fists into the empty metaverse.
“The Internet is a highly entertaining place.”
“Far Left” and “Far Right” only exist in contrast, and require an observer who has an opinion on where they themselves land. This is in consideration to the many politically identifying labels along the spectrum (socialist, progressive, liberal, moderate, etc). In other words, these identifiers are largely subjective. It’s a finger pointing free-for-all. The majority of the liberal left has become trapped in identity politics, semantics, and regressive cultural debate specific to Black twitter. All this social energy continues to marinate, becoming sentient in a way, creating a feedback loop of zero action and all emotion. Hypothetical, ultimately stagnant thoughts. The Internet is like a mathematical function; we input our engagement time and are met with a calculated reflection of thought containing the energetic output of others. Taking this equation seriously and being present with our engagement would allow us to actually get somewhere. Too many of us, quite frankly, don’t really care. The Internet is a highly entertaining place.
When you consider how that feedback loop also births online extremism through the encouragement of chronic, isolated credo, it’s a perfect recipe for disaster. Racists and misogynists of the past maintained their beliefs through legally enforced freedoms to act in the display of their hatred. Now, those generational ideologies have been put through the socio-political wringer, starting with the formation of the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement following many years later. That wringer has only gotten tighter with time, but the pressure to eradicate bigotry has exponentially increased in the digital age.
“Revolution awakens and is sustained in the body.”
Considering these newfound social restraints, white supremacists have found conviction in an excuse to feel personally oppressed. Bonding in chat rooms over their hatred for nearly all ethnic and political groups, the government, and the “attempted genocide of the white race” has resulted in the execution of domestic terror, conspired and cheerfully observed through the online medium. What can be said about these right-wing extremists is that, instead of using the Internet to remain docile, they intentionally recruit, and have an unwavering sense of intent to take initiative– offline. In addition, their dogma remains strong. As those who are opposed to this clear enemy to national progress, are we watching this happen from a perspective that makes us even further alienate ourselves from such methods?
It is to be considered that maybe we have something to learn from what’s been presented to us. Not to become terrorists, or racists in chat rooms, but to see the value in establishing trust, uncomplicated (but in our case, intelligent) postulation, and orchestrated strategy within strong community. The left is too garbled, preoccupied with so many fights for individually relevant justices, that we have no focus. We leave focusing on the big picture to our politicians, who we know have failed us consistently. We need to let go of the illusion of even a semi-functional democracy in this country. If we don't, what and who are we really empowering?
Alas, while most of us have enough individual rage to riot in the streets, we are hesitant. Not on the Internet, however, not within the collective. The collective is passive, despite having more smoke for social problems than we know what to do with. So we do nothing.
Everyone claims they’re ready for revolution, but most can’t find a way to go beyond shouting it from their app of choice.
We are effectively immobilized by our methods, our means, of attempting to further manifest desire for change. While most of us want to believe we know what to do in real life, we have absolutely no clue. Who is we? Is it our mutuals? Our followers? Those we respect and admire for their beliefs from a distance? Is it simply the people we know in real life? This façade of actionable political progression is a very dangerous game to play when it is the exact game that has no winning - only confusion, oppression, and death. Mass media — the big brands, large corporations, and celebritydom as a whole — do not want you to leave the Internet, for that would be forfeiting this very optional yet unimaginably entrancing war on your consciousness. The targeted ads and funny memes you see in between the most productive, radical takes you’ll hear in a day create an inability to pay any real attention. So much so that you no longer even have the capacity to identify your mental exhaustion for what it really is.
The pandemic has undoubtedly caused physical and emotional turmoil in our personal lives. However, instead of the media owning up to and respecting the truth about their role in our mental health by dialing down the 24/7 bombardment of content, the media tells us that Americans are burnt out only because of the pandemic. They have no interest in doing their part to save us from our active participation in collective mental decline. So we keep running, like the Energizer bunny on a hamster wheel. The batteries in our backs are well past E, but we aren’t given the opportunity to see that with full clarity, because our electricity is sourced in tandem with the juice on our phones.
“… our rage is pacified, through sheer distraction.”
How effective can exhausted discourse be? Discourse that so desperately wants to find the solution within the discourse itself? In order to mobilize revolutionary acts, your mind and body must have the capacity. Revolution awakens and is sustained in the body. By trying to circumnavigate, you become trapped. “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” the famous song by revolutionary poet Gil Scott Heron, had this figured out in ’71. We’ve begun to convince ourselves to act as though this powerful understanding of revolution is no longer as relevant in the age of high technology, and we are deeply fooling ourselves. “There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers on instant replay. There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers on instant replay,” he says. Understand what this means in 2022. Viral videos of murders by the hands of the police, like the murder of George Floyd, have become a dark expectation through the lens of social media. Like clockwork come the hashtags, the graphics about police brutality and social justice, the digital noise. In the end it calms down, eventually being diluted by regularly scheduled programming. And our rage is pacified, through sheer distraction. This is the same reason the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement were able to go financially unchecked for so long – the protection provided behind the passionate façade of social media. There are plenty of people who are aware of the glaring truth that is the Internet’s crippling duality on our competency for revolution, but not enough commit to a functional pivot in priorities. Those who understand this continue to digitally participate, whether it be by laughing as we dance with tragic comedy, or sharing important knowledge and resources in spite of these truths, because there is seemingly no other option. Why? Because it’s what everyone is doing: the masses are simply online.
“We must prioritize figuring out a way to forego the convenience and speed of online ‘activism’.”
It is worth acknowledging that online activism does hold some value. There have been legitimately significant waves of awareness that have, arguably, resulted in tangible change. Take the #MeToo movement for example. Analysis from a social standpoint can conclude that women genuinely felt more seen and protected in the workplace. Sexual assault accountability becoming the center of attention for once surely resulted in less men feeling emboldened and confident enough to believe they could get away with harassment, even if this came from a place of resentment for the movement itself. Even so, the movement found so much success — the translations effortless between online and offline impact — because socially addressing sexual assault is many degrees removed from requiring upfront and direct government response. The #MeToo movement was perfectly fitting for the digital era, literally crediting its success and sense of camaraderie to social media. If we hone in on the critical thinking skills required, we can easily see that the hope for that same success in regards to plowing other systemic issues of white supremacy is gravely naïve. Recently, in a nasty turn of events, the mass mania of Internet culture prevailed once again in the witnessing of the Heard v. Depp trial – birthing the abysmally unhinged memes, discourse, and misinformation fueled by Depp stans and misogynists alike. Launching “Believe all women except Amber Heard” into the general public stratosphere did unprecedented damage in the struggle for legal and social recourse for people experiencing abuse. Not only that, it highlighted and revealed the capacity the Internet provides for humans to completely dissociate from empathy, human decency, and general common sense when faced with mass psychological manipulation. The work of the #MeToo movement was grossly reversed in a substantial way, and quickly. This is the fickle, delicate, and uniquely dangerous nature of online social progress that must be heeded.
As long as we continue to be chronically digital through these events, they will continue to run their course, only temporarily calling us to haphazard action or leaving their regressive societal mark. This model of socio-political engagement is utterly depressing, immediately followed by being a blessing in the eyes of the government. Consider this a call to action. “The Revolution Cannot Be Televised” is synonymous with digitization. The revolution cannot be digitized. We must prioritize figuring out a way to forego the convenience and speed of online “activism.” Finding ways to use social media on the back end, instead of the front. It’s not reasonable in this day and age to expect to share information en masse without apps, but there needs to be a serious offline game plan that is just as strong — stronger — in numbers. We are not truly united or protected until it is so. There is no hope for revolution until we leave our devices, heal our minds, our bodies, and expand our communities. Sanity is becoming less and less of a qualifying factor in socio-political influence as our society nears collapse. We need to abandon the disorientating confusion and accurately identify those we can unify with clearly, in real life. This is not a safe space. The Internet will never be a safe space, even if it seems to be for a moment.
