3 ms·
Of course Bitcoin is not a socialist's ally in the long run. It's fundamentally a way to get government out of money, which is exactly the opposite of socialism
by kerkeslager 6y ago
Of course Bitcoin is not a socialist's ally in the long run. It's fundamentally a way to get government out of money, which is exactly the opposite of socialism. Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist tool.
The article rightly notes that the ability to print money is relevant here, but I think they could have expressed it in simpler terms. In short: printing money is always a redistribution of wealth. If you print a million dollars and give it to a group, you've effectively taken money away from everyone else and redistributed it to that group. The pot of wealth in the country hasn't changed size, the recipients of the newly-minted money just have more of the pot.
In a socialist ideal, this is a key tool because it's one of the main ways of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. You print money and give it to the poor. This isn't creating value, obviously, it's just decreasing the value of the money held by the rich, and giving that value to the poor. A decentralized value store can't do that.
However, some socialists would argue that the ability to print money in modern western powers is primarily used to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, not the other way around. Due to this, a socialist might say it's better to use a decentralized value store now than to use a centralized value store that is used to redistribute wealth in the wrong direction.
If you're a socialist, the question on your mind with regards to bitcoin should be: Is the power to print money being used to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich? And if so, is the short term benefit of avoiding this harm worth the longer-term harm of moving value out of stores where wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor? These are much more complicated questions: the first might be answerable with data, but the second question involves a lot of future variables which may simply be impossible to predict.
- einpoklum 6y ago> Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist tool. s/tool/ponzi scheme/... or in other words - I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements.
- Melting_Harps 6y agoThen your view(s) is solely fixed on those who benefit from this exclusionary Monetary System, go ask people who don't have access to bank accounts or are undocumented how horribly they are treated and marginalized then come back and see what is and isn't a ponzi scheme. See how many people are unfairly targeted by the State(s) with policies like Operation Chokepoint in the US, though similar laws exists in other places as well, while at the same those very same Governments bail out Banks and Corporations found guilty in money laundering for Drug Cartels or other illicit crimes and while telling the People they're not doing enough to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of living due to these policies and inflated asset bubbles. Go look up what System D is, and see what worker movements it could help benefit, because just from that statement alone you show just horribly informed you are and how narrow and ignorant your view of the World really is.
- wmf 6y agoThe unofficial economy would benefit far far more from a stablecoin than deflationary BTC.
- kerkeslager 6y agoTrue, but in the situations the comment you're responding to mentions, a stable coin is not an option. Deflationary BTC is superior to having your funds seized.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago> The unofficial economy would benefit far far more from a stablecoin That's right... Because tether has proven that so well, hasn't it? By the way, Bitcoin will remain inflationary until the last one is mined 2140, as it continues to approximately discover the entire 21 million into existence until then. Which is long after you or I will be around, be even then you can create a form of colored coin derivative backed by other more stable assets (wheat, pork bellies?) now if you wanted to. I thought stablecoins may have had some limited utility, but I feel they're just re-creating the same problem by using the same tools that fiat does and further convoluting it by attaching the Cryptocurrency Brand over it. I'm not impressed by it nor would I think people who are marginalized would want to rely on yet another centralized system for their existence.