This made some good observations, and is important because it frames the new online collectivism in an intellectual, non-alarmist way. But I can't stress enough how much I disagree with Kelly's "New Socialism" moniker -- not because of the word's cultural stigma but because it's simply not accurate. In socialism, all spheres of free activity and property are incorporated into the state, and by virtue of being everywhere the state becomes invisible. This isn't the case in digital communal culture. A workforce of free agents in a decentralized barter economy is far from the socialist model; a "spectrum of attitudes, techniques, and tools that promote collaboration, sharing, aggregation, coordination, ad hocracy, and a host of other newly enabled types of social cooperation" is even farther. Much closer to the reality of this new force is something like plain "collectivism," "anarcho-collectivism," or despite *its* cultural stigma, perhaps just "anarchism." There's nothing statist about digital culture, not even a driving ideology, just a general principle of sharing, cooperation and, most of all, individualism. Past socialist governments would be horrified by what the internet has done for free speech and organizing. Otherwise, Kelly makes a robust argument celebrating this revolution in the way we, ahem, socialize and collaborate. The concern at the core of Jaron Lanier's "Digital Maoism" (see links) seems to be fading -- the "hive" is a lot more sophisticated than many predicted.