There was a recent decision of Google to shut down several blogs without apparent warning from Google. This decision has generated a lot of controversy and some degree of anti capitalist rhetoric. One comment I read recently said "capitalism is eating itself". As an amateur musician and composer, I don't like to see blogs regarding music shut down without warning. This blog provider that I am using is one as well. However, to see this recent actiion as some deep dark capitalist conspiracy against music or bloggers I believe is stretching the limits of credibility.
First, I would like to point out that this decision involved only a few sites and there may have been reasons behind these decisions. Not knowing the details of why this was done, I don't believe I can speculate on motivation only as to make a general statement that the most like reason is that Google does not want to be involved in a lawsuit.
I find it amazing that the very same people who rally against decisions like this are often the very same ones who remain silent against the extremely negative effect of lawyers on all of capitalist society. I honestly believe that one of the great negatives of capitalism is the effect that lawyers have had on our society this being only one example. Might I point out as well that at least one of the major components of the high cost of health care is medical malpractice insurance. The cost of all products we buy also reflects the expense of companies carrying liability insurance and yet the same moralists who rally against capitalism remain silent when it comes to tort reform.
I would also like to point out that these blogs were free right? I think its part of the agreement that the Google, and other free blog providers, that they reserve the right to shut down a blog. If this blog were shut down I would not be happy about it but I would not rally against the company providing it because its a free service. If one wants a guarantee that their blog will remain then make a contract with a company to insure that. Sure, that is going to involve that oh so nasty word these days, at least in current administration circles, money but that's how capitalism works. If you want a service, you pay for it or you accept the conditions imposed by a free service.
Some have suggested that Google be boycotted. That's fine but realize that boycotts are a capitalist tool are they not? Look at it this way. If someone does not like Google they go somewhere else. If Google or any other company wants to survive they have to keep people happy. While capitalism is not perfect in any sense, this kind of control is automatic. If one does not keep their customers happy then they don't survive.
It's also important to realize that in a socialist or communist system, you don't have anywhere to go if you don't like what the government does. There is also no built in safeguard that is motivated by the profit. The government has no motivation to keep its citizens happy other than votes but even that has its limits. The decisions of politicians are often based more on special interest and big business that provide campaign financing than they are the will of the poeple. Perhaps if there are faults in the system, that would be a good place to start looking. If we give more and more power to the government and throw capitalism under the train then our ability to vote will also be taken away and who will people boycott then.
I guess all I am saying is that there are more sides to this issue than those voiced by reactionary anti capitalists who are ready, willing and able to throw their freedom away.