Bitcoin Forum

I am surprised at the number of leftists I see on the forum. I mean people who in general believe that the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society, rather than being the particular decisions of individuals, which would be a more capitalist conception. 

Precisely Bitcoin is something completely opposite to a left-wing conception of monetary policy. It does not depend on a state, but on how a multitude of individuals act in a decentralized manner.

Bitcoin is much closer to an Austrian School of Economics conception than to a Keynesian conception.

This thread has occurred to me because of something I read the other day:


By the way, the political party in government in El Salvador, which Hydrogen doubted, is right-wing:

"On June 1, 2019, Nayib Bukele under the banner of the GANA party became the first president of El Salvador ..." (Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_for_National_Unity))

"Grand Alliance for National Unity, GANA is a right-wing Salvadoran political party established in May 2010." (Source (https://elsalvadorinfo.net/gana-el-salvador-political-party.))

This is not to say that it is impossible for any left-wing government to be Bitcoin-friendly. Nor do I mean to say that it is completely contradictory for someone to be a leftist and be on this forum and invest in Bitcoin, but it is a bit of a paradox.

If you believe that the state is the best guarantor of progress and welfare, instead of getting involved in Bitcoin, you'd better support the centralized shitcoin that states are about to create, the digital dollar, the digital euro, the digital pound...and not a currency that takes power away from the state. A currency that is much more difficult to confiscate, and therefore to redistribute, with which it is much easier to cross borders to avoid paying taxes with huge amounts, etc.

I don't know how you reconcile one belief with another.

You'll probably notice if you watch for long enough that the 'socialists' you see here are not real big fans of distributed crypto-currency technology or Bitcoin.

Bitcoin as a system was recognized by TPTB as a potential threat about the time I became aware of it.  Had to do with an attempted WikiLeaks financial blockade.

By 2012-ish some methods to try to mitigate the threat were underway, but happily they largely failed because the primary development team were not dopes.  The social manipulation of the community was a prong of the threat mitigation strategy.  Some of the social media influence assets were assigned the 'bitcointalk books' and their participation waxes and wanes and the accounts (and personnel behind them) come and go. The players who are human will have other non-bitcointalk accounts to attend to as well.

I'm surprised that most people seem very right-wing. I understand the origins of bitcoin, but I don't understand why it should appeal solely to those on the far right.

Perhaps this is the crux of it. I have always voted for left-wing parties, but I would disagree vehemently with anyone who believes that "the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society". Pure laissez-faire 'ancap' capitalism can't sit well with a left-winger, but capitalist democracy can and often does.
As I've explained in other threads, I believe that capitalist democracy, whilst flawed, is the best system we have. My issue is with how the state behaves. Any absolute, pure system results in authoritarianism. We need a system where there are two opposing forces that work to cancel out each other's excesses. Surely this is a good idea?
A big distinction between myself and a right-winger, when looking at the government - and I suppose I am talking specifically about the UK - is that I don't see a force that is dedicated to holding business back and inhibiting progress, I see instead a bunch of privately-educated elitists (a lot of UK prime ministers went to the same fee-paying school as children) who are destined from birth to rise to power. And when they get there they just perpetuate the us-and-them divide. Corruption and cronyism are rife, meritocracy nonexistent, and the government works primarily to enrich themselves and their millionaire friends, and couldn't care less about the general population.
I vote left not because I want to bring about a Stalinist dystopia, but because I think progress works best when the government works for the people, as a brake against capitalist excesses, rather than as an enabler. Capitalism is great so long as it doesn't go too far. I mean, cartels and monopolies should be prevented, right?
Bitcoin in this context appeals to a leftist because it offers a route by which individuals gain some measure of control, free from the elitist tyranny of the ultra-rich.
A personal perspective, and one I'm willing to acknowledge is a generalisation rather than a universal truth, but I see right-wingers as being motivated purely by self-interest, against equality of opportunity, and in favour of entrenched advantage, and the right-wing conception of bitcoin as being a way to erode what fragile mechanisms exist to give everyone a fair chance in life, and a further way to f**k the undeserving poor.

I'm glad the forum doesn't allow negative merits, or I'd be drowning in them now :D

--

Edited for spelling. This often happens during a rant :)

Except many if not most of the self-proclaimed right-wing individual-liberty champions on this forum have varying degrees of autocratic and populist leanings, cheering hardliners like the ones mentioned in the quote you posted (Bolsonaro and Bukele).

That's a far more bizarre thing for me to reconcile. Supporting strongman politics just because it aligns with my views... no, thank you. Been there, seen that, doesn't end well. I don't like the government getting into my business but I dislike random populist bullshit even more.

(edited for clarity)

Lol, Cnut237, I haven't used your trigger word but you seem triggered. I repeat what I have said:




The following is what I wanted to know, thanks:


And this also:


Just a clarification, it is not that I mention Bolsonaro and Bukelele in my post, I am citing another post on how they are favorable to Bitcoin. This does not mean that I like them or that I like all their political measures. I like that they support Bitcoin, yes.

I may be projecting somewhat, but I think they (people prone to populism) inherently recognize that unless one is a strongman of sorts, the chances of getting rolled over and flattened by the elite steamroller are running at about 100%.  So, might as well support a strongman just in case he may be 'for real' because a weak one even if he/she is 'for real' will lose.

Most people who feel animosity to anything which threatens the elite have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them.  I'll bet that the elite's disdain for such dick-eaters is exceeds whatever they might feel toward the populists class of useless eaters by a mile.  I'm not surprised in the least to see your attitude about that here.

As opposed to what, believing that a dictator will care about anyone's interests beyond their own?

I'll take voting for someone/something and ending up with it not being 100% aligned with my interests, over anointing someone to rule with no accountability. But to each their own.

As an interesting — to me, at least — aside, my perception of people who vote for right-wing parties (like the Conservative party in the UK) is that they do so specifically because they "have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them".
I know quite a few people who had a poor upbringing in traditional working-class families and backgrounds, but now vote right-wing. Invariably* this is because they have an inbuilt feeling of inferiority instilled in them from an early age. As an exit plan, they have then each set some arbitrary barometer of success, whether owning a house, or getting an office job rather than manual job, etc... and then once they've reached this point, they feel a desperate need to let everyone know that they've "made it" and are now a success. One way they demonstrate their "wealth" and "achievements" is to vote for parties that favour the elite... because these fools have deluded themselves into believing that pulling themselves up from say the bottom 20% into the bottom 50%, they are suddenly part of, and favoured by, the elitist club of the ultra-rich. And so they continually vote against both their own personal best interests, and the best interests of the majority of society. Another easy way to spot these people is to try to engage them in any sort of political discussion... they will just regurgitate the latest tabloid headlines at you, often word for word.



*invariably amongst the specific people I know and am talking about here.


---


Yeah. And I've not even been drinking. ;D

Politics differs from economics, so while the economics of Bitcoin is hard-coded, Bitcoin as a tool can be used by both political ends. It's just a money after all and both "the left" and "the right" like gold AFAIK. When SOEs use Bitcoin, they ain't "convert" to private enterprises. The government can control everything outside the Bitcoin system. They just can't control ~21 million supply, can't block transactions, etc.

No, it is that you (in plural) are making mental jokes. The working class worker has little reason to vote for leftist parties today, it is not like 80 years ago and even less so if he is a white heterosexual male.

I don't know what it will be like specifically in the UK but I tell you what happens in general because you left wing people seem to have a blind spot there.

The left wing parties defend mass immigration, when they govern they let in many more immigrants who end up living in working class neighborhoods while the (usually millionaire) left wing politicians brag about fixing the world while they don't suffer the problems of that mass immigration because they live in upper class neighborhoods where there is hardly any immigration and when there is it is usually from engineers, high level sportsmen, university professors and the like.

In the slum you have unskilled people competing with those workers for jobs and welfare benefits. Not to mention if they come from a completely different culture, they hate the western culture and they don't integrate, like in France you have a lot of third generation Muslims that don't feel French and they don't integrate.

That is why the French working class neighborhoods have ended up voting for LePen. France has always been a progressive, pro-immigration country, they accepted a lot of Africans from their ex-colonies with little hindrance and those same working class, progressive, pro-immigration neighborhoods that voted left 30 years ago have radically changed their vote.

Have they gone mad? Haven't they gone from being cool progressive socialists to fascists? Neither have they.

If the person who lives in that neighborhood is also a white heterosexual man, he has to hear that he is to blame for the evils of the world, and he is also discriminated against with what they call "positive discrimination", which is discrimination after all.

When the leftists come to power, they put more regulations and more taxes, so that if the person who lives in that neighborhood is self-employed, they see how taxes go up and they give more money to people in "aid" for doing nothing. If he is not self-employed but is a salaried worker, he will see how there is less employment, and more taxes if he thinks of saving and investing.

To think that if workers have gone from voting left to voting right is because they are stupid or because they are alienated and think they are going to be part of an elite is not wanting to see the problem and navel gazing.

No, it is not the voters who are to blame for the turnaround in the vote, it is the left-wing politicians who have caused it.

In some discussions we reach some common ground, but in this one we are very far apart.


The comment about white heterosexual males is quite telling. This is precisely what I mean when I say that right-wing voters are in favour of entrenched privilege, so long as they are in the privileged group. They don't want others to share the advantages that they have benefitted from, because if everyone has an equal opportunity, they lose their unfair advantage. I am a white, heterosexual male, and I am wholly supportive of feminism and movements such as BLM. I don't think it's fair that some people are subject to mistreatment or don't get a chance, just because of their race or gender or sexual orientation. Everyone should get a fair chance in life, and I will always vote to reduce or remove my advantage in this regard.


Okay.  ::)


... who are usually of working age, and perform crucial jobs to support the economy, often jobs that are unpalatable to the privileged natives. A few years back in the UK we had the Brexit xenophobia referendum. The racists won, and guess what? We now have staffing crises in crucial industries, because there are no immigrant workers willing to slave away for a pittance.


Ouch. This is really your belief? If you were an immigrant entering a country where people thought as you did, then would you feel welcome? You are extremely prejudiced.


When you say "a lot", what does this mean? "Some" out of millions? Are you claiming that this is true of the majority? The logic is BADeckeresque. "Some" people who had the Covid vaccine scalded themselves whilst cooking... therefore nothing.


Here in the UK, and no doubt also in the USA ("build the wall!"), right-wing politicians have exploited normal people for a very long time. And normal people used to vote left-wing, but now, many of them don't. Have you read 1984? The carefully crafted narrative from those in power is that the inequalities are never their fault, it's never bankers and corrupt business leaders taking your money and starving you of opportunity, no, it's always some voiceless minority who can't fight back. Who's making you poor? Why, it's the Mexicans of course! Or the gypsies! The Romanians, Polish, etc. It's not the white guy in the private jet who just gave you a pay cut, no, it's not his fault! Farcical of course, but it works. 


I don't hear that. But then I don't consider myself primarily as part of a white heterosexual male group, exclusive to everything else. I'm not part of any group, other than being human.


It's not, no. It's an attempt — clumsy at times, yes — to right historical and endemic wrongs.


I find this sort of viewpoint to be both fairly common and morally abhorrent. Not to mention without any factual basis.


See above. If someone is taking away your opportunities, then who is most likely to be doing it? The person in power or the person who has no power? Think about it.

Exactly! The government really want to  own and control Bitcoin,they've been effective in other sectors of human endeavour,but taking over Bitcoin should be a No No.
Bitcoin is worldwide,way far bigger than what the government can control  as for now.The moment the government is given that leg-room  to have control over Bitcoin,then certain values will begin  to drop.
I wonder why they won't just forget about Bitcoin and focus on other areas to control, and own,and life Bitcoin.

I'm surprised you are the first part in this sentence a heterosexual white male. I would have thought you were binary or whatever bullshit they call it LGBTQPTXYZ+ person. Feminism and BLM are about dehumanizing other people while being the corporate talking piece of divsion so that we are at each others throats. Right or Left. Gay or Straight. Race. Religion. Age. Whatever the corporate media mouthpieces go on about you seem to pick up. Your just conformists plan and simple. I bet yall got in at about 2017 because it was all the media rage then (you still might have made out handsomely if you did). Anyway back to BLM, you realize it is funded by all the big corporation and George Soros? I think even China funds it so what does that say to you? Its controlled-opposition is what it is. Do you think BLM cares about all the gun violence and crime in their communities? Fuck no its a dinner-bell for whenever a white cop or even a cop period kills a black person to just riot and loot.

A Socialists Bitcoiner is a Oxymoron
The Socialists are the shitcoiners on the forum

Everybody wants to live better, why is that so hard to understand?

Today the only unfair advantage is that you have a more prepared candidate, with more merits to get a job and the job is given to a less prepared candidate because she is a woman or an ethnic minority. That is the only unfair thing today. We live in the most egalitarian societies in the history of mankind.

I defend the classic feminism, the one that fought for women and men to have equal rights, for women to be able to vote, etc. I am against modern man-hating feminism, which once it has achieved equal rights, what it wants is revenge.

And of course I am not defending the movement Black Lives Only Matter depending on who is the killer. It is a movement that complains about the alleged structural racism in the USA, but not only does it not say a single word about structural racism in Cuba, it defends the dictatorial Cuban regime:

I know about the structural racism in Cuba because some time ago I met people who lived there, but googling:

"Manuel Cuesta, 57, an Afro-Cuban government opponent, says "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics" of the country."

Source: Racism in Cuba: banned by law, alive on the streets. (https://www.france24.com/en/20200718-racism-in-cuba-banned-by-law-alive-on-the-streets)

Not a word from BLM about structural racism in Cuba.


The immigration issue is a question of the speed with which you let immigrants in. For me the brexit in the UK was a mistake. But that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about the left wing navel gazing discourse not wanting to understand why the indigenous working class vote has swung to the right. And the summary of it all is that left wing politicians have abandoned them.

Among the people who immigrate, the poor people, most of them are honest and very valid, but if you let in many very quickly what you do is to put pressure on social services, push wages down and give less social benefits to the natives, so you can not be surprised that the native worker stops voting for you because that is what you have sought. It is not about any kind of alienation by which he wants to be part of an elite.


No, no prejudice, see the previous comment. I see a leftist tendency also that if you do not support massive immigration (only the controlled one) you are racist, that although you do not say so it seems that is what you imply, and nothing further from reality.

I am talking about Muslims. Tell me how integrated second and third generation Muslims are in France. On this forum I can say that God (whether Muslim or Christian) is an invention, a pre-scientific human creation, which makes no sense in a modern world and that believing in God is like believing in ghosts.

For saying that I risk my life in France.


Great strawman arg. I am claiming that this is true to a significant percentage.


Of course I have read 1984, but what you are doing in the paragraph is assuming as a premise the conclusion you want to reach.



We are not going to reach an agreement on this.


Well, here I have to agree with you because it seems to me that in the UK the subsidies are much lower than in other European countries. But in general, this type of aid is a redistribution from those who work to those who do not work, not only for the poor who have nothing and are starving.


The left-wing politician who has put more obstacles, more regulations and more taxes on the labor market, in addition to filling the country with immigrants at too high a rate, which put downward pressure on wages.

And how often does this happen? All the time? Or hardly ever, and isolated instances are widely publicised by racists? You can't imply it's a general principle unless you can back this up.


Agreed. But this shouldn't be seen as a reason to stop improving, or to deny that problems exist which need to be addressed.


There's no point in responding to this with anything other than an emoji.  ::)


I got double-charged for an item in the supermarket the other day. No word from BLM on that. So they're in favour of shops double-charging people, right?  ::)


The pompous fools who vote right-wing because they think (or want people to think) they've "made it" and are now part of the elite are only a subset of right-wing voters. There are of course other reasons people vote for right-wing parties. Some are racist, yes, and get scared and enraged when the billionaires who run tabloid newspapers blame immigrants for all their woes.


No-one is perfect. I give some of my money to charities. Could I give more, without significantly impacting my way of life? Certainly, yes. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite... but there are degrees of hypocrisy.


I would argue that you're talking about a small subset of a very large group. If someone in a red t-shirt attacks me, should I hate everyone in red t-shirts?


Well, then show some numbers.


Another point on which we will never agree, I think. For me the evidence is crystal clear, and is demonstrated every day.


Here in the UK we've not had a left-wing leader since the 1970s, probably since 1976. And yet, nearly 50 years later, it's still the immigrants who seem to be to blame for everything. Isn't that strange?

Maybe get a bit out of your Tone Vays / Saifedean Ammous bubble.  :D
According to them everyone is a "leftist" who doesn't share their point of view.

Bitcoin is for everyone, not just right wing, self-proclaimed heros.  ::)


The problem is if you say left wing = USSR, it might be true but unfortunately for you, most center / liberal / progressive concepts have very little in common with a communist dictatorship as long as it's a democratic party.
In Germany for example, the liberal party has many pro Bitcoin politicians.
Bitcoin is clearly pro democracy and that's why Bitcoin is definitely much more rejected by authoritarian politicians like Trump or Bolsonaro. Bitcoin is reducing the power of dictators and reducing their power is exactly what dictators don't want. Cracking down on free press, judges, curbing democracy or banning censorship resistant currencies is what a dictator needs to secure his power.
But hey, that's what Tone Vays and his braindead friends don't tell.  ;)

Bitcoin is anti government..
Bitcoin is dog eat dog, wild west, may the best man win, if you get scammed haha your an idiot maybe you'll learn from it..

Pro any sort of government/authority and pro Bitcoin is an oxymoron..

The "right" is almost just as bas as the "left" anymore.. Neither are palatable..

These countries adopting Bitcoin are simply giving up on trying to control money.. Hope the USA doesn't bomb them back to the central banking scheme..

Well, I am not going to waste any more time because it is clear that we are not going to reach an agreement and even more so when I believe that we are already bordering on demagogy, such as for example


BLM's central discourse is not based on structural double-charging, as it is on structural racism, and BLM does not praise your supermarket, as it does the Cuban regime, so I'd better not waste my time answering this next time.


No.

You're off to a bad start too. Quote me where I said that, otherwise I don't waste my time responding to the rest of what you say.


I had not thought of it that way, but, in general, it would be a conception more similar to that of the Austrian school than to that of Keynes, as I said at the beginning. What happens is that, at least in theory, right-wing politics advocates less regulations and less taxes, so that people are freer or less dependent on the state.

Going forward as long as the thread remains open and it has replies it is best that we do not go off-topic to the general left-righ topic but more related to Bitcoin.

Why only left vs right while their is the entire other dynamic of authoritarian vs libertarian?

Bitcoin is obviously an extremely libertarian concept/tool..
Bitcoin BTFOs the left or right authoritarian straight down to libertarian status..

It probably just so happens that more people on the right are more libertarian than people on the left are..
It takes authority and force to make people obey leftist ideals.. Not so much to be left alone..

The Libertarian spirit in this forum that once was a nearly unanimous attitude has turned into a mostly silent presence. It’s amazing to see that as Bitcoin went mainstream and enriched it’s supporters, suddenly the majority of newcomers were “socialists” seeking their piece of the pie. This is when it went from wanting to develop a new system to replace the old, to wanting to sellout in any way possible to assimilate into the old system and raise the price.

demshelvicks. they just want it but won't create it, what ever it is, by what ever means they can take it, today the captured state, because they deserve it, they are the "sophisticated".

and then pretend it was theirs, all along which they enforce with censorship and constant repetition (brainwashing).

just say no, and leave.As said, they can only take, never create. "socialism" is just a catch phraze they use, to hide the reality of their deeds.

advice (to self), don't fall for the label, look at the deeds, the rest are just sounds in the air or visual signs on papers.

to divide us, to loot us, control us, rape us, enlsave us, plunder us, capture us, is their real motto.

away with our sovereignty, independence and liberty they seek to finish,

for our own good and safety, of course.

in short : they are the bambi killers.

https://i1.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/bambi-1.jpg?fit=800%2C+9999&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C450px&quality=100&ssl=1

dreamin to make us their personal pinochio

https://img1.grunge.com/img/uploads/2017/02/Pinocchio.jpg

and the only way to maintain our liberties, is to be ready to fight them in the harshest way currently possible, to win, by annihilating anything they could imagine.

defeating them won't be easy, but as they hate meritocracy, it's not impossible. the real challenge is to minimize costs, to reach flawless victory, or resaid, their total&integral annihilation.

ps you can see that due to their censorship effort, their bad faith, their absence of logic or coherent thoughts, this forum is decaying, like everything they ever touched.

they are the self prophecy of doom, failures and ruins - the damned.

seems alot of people have no clue about the cultural and political structures.

thinking that a capitalist nation makes everyone prosper and do things for the betterment of common man. is the most idiotic thing to even dream of saying let alone saying it publicly.

capitalist is about guys at the top taking money from those at the bottom,.for the betterment of those at the top.
whereby no laws or regulations exist to stop this.

socialism is where the money that goes in from the top and the bottom helps all. especially those that NEED it rather than just those that WANT it.

too many times people dont actually understand socialism and instead just automatically take media narrative of communism mispronounced as socialism

so here is a question for you

if 200million people earning less than say $25k a year. had to put $2.5k into the treasury
($500billion)
and say 100million higher earners who know some loop holes only had to put in $1k each
($100bill)
would you call that fair?


next. do you prefer that $600billion to be used in which allocation
a.$50bill social security $400bill government contracts linked to politicians. $150bill commerce
b.$50bill social security $400bill commerce $150bill government contracts linked to politicians.
c.$150bill social security $400bill government contracts selected by public need. $50bill commerce

a= communism  b= capitalism   c=socialism

Your view is completely correct, there is no compatibility between centralization and decentralization, governments are central by nature and want to impose control over everything because of their central nature, so governments according to their current thinking cannot accept the existence of decentralized cryptocurrencies or any decentralized system outside their control, so they work to eliminate Decentralization by creating these central digital currencies that are under their authority and control.
Cryptocurrencies, on the contrary, are taking away the centralization of the government and its control over the entire financial and economic system. It is completely different and I see that it is impossible to reconcile these two systems and the conflict will continue between these two systems until one of them eliminates the other, personally I see the result clearly which is the victory of the decentralization system and cryptocurrencies .

The purpose of my ridiculous point was solely to highlight the absurdity of your argument. But we can return to it, if you wish. I was attempting to distill all of the below into a few sentences, but let's have it in long form:




Okay, so "there are the vestiges and remnants of symbolically cordial racism, structurally hidden, installed in the economic, institutional and political dynamics of the country." Well, of course. Is there a country where this isn't true? What is your point?

I mean, we can take another excerpt from your link:


So, yay for the communists! ... right? Which kind of undermines your point.

My point is that after the section I quoted, comes this sentence: "But racism persists."
My point is that you often insist on an absolute either/or, and resolutely refuse to consider shades of grey, whether on Venezuela, Cuba, or on the concept that is entirely shades of grey, that is entirely compromise: capitalist democracy.

Racism in Cuba is of course a complex issue, a real world situation with millions of people and many years of history. The elimination of racism, sexism etc., is an ongoing struggle, everywhere. A perfect solution will not be found, but every step in the right direction is to be welcomed.

Your article begins with:


The BLM comments are clumsy and poorly-timed, yes. But the US embargo has of course had a profoundly detrimental effect on Cuba. This is undeniable, surely? But I will not attempt to claim it is the only problem. The government is hugely at fault, too, as I believe I mentioned some time ago in my criticism of the Cuban regime, and its attempts to stifle press freedom. It's not either/or. It's both. The Cuban government over the years has done some good things, and many bad things. It should be perfectly possible to support the good things, without this being taken as tacit support for the bad things, without this being forced through outrageous contortions into your mangled argument that BLM=bad.



This was where you started. The "alleged" structural racism comment I will let slide but again, to anyone with even a slight interest in data (which, on this specific topic, I've posted several times before), it's reminiscent of a certain freedom-lovin' fact-hatin' frequent flyer on the P&S board.
Your argument is that BLM isn't interested (or not interested primarily) in reducing structural, endemic racism in the US because... what? They're secretly (or, in your view, overtly) champions of repression?



I am becoming irritated, and these posts are both overly lengthy, and veering away from the focus on bitcoin. I'll try not to post in this thread again; I'm sure we will pick up these topics again later on, somewhere else, and may perhaps even, eventually, reach some common ground.

Back to bitcoin...

Well, if you say "no", your point doesn't make any sense at all and you just confirm my point of view, that everyone who disagree is bashed as a "communist".  :D

---

You miss a very important point here: There are various forms of "government" and therefore can't be generalized. There are authoritarian regimes (for example North Korea) where the government isn't elected because Kim Jong Un is "given" and can't be replaced (until he dies). People can't vote and can't become a political candidate. There's only one party following the leader.
And then, in opposite, there are democracies, currently the best one in Switzerland, where people can frequently vote bad politicians out and even vote on different issues. In addition, everyone can become a candidate or even found a new political party. Democracies are usually doing the same like decentralized cryptocurrencies: decentralizing power into as many hands as possible and everyone can contribute.
Now, if you compare now North Korea and Switzerland, that's a huge difference of "governments".

A decentralized democracy (like Switzerland) is very similar to decentralized cryptocurrencies.

Monarchy vs democracy has almost nothing to do with them being authoritarian or libertarian..

It is completely possible for the gov to be a monarchy, like NK, and be damn near anarchy at the same time..

wicked gov controlled by the msn and social medias (enemies of mankind), are of course, seeking total control (centralization) on all human activities, from reproduction, food or energy production, they even seek to control the rain that fall on your head !

I guess they know they are obsolete, anyone with a tracking phone can record videos, they won't ever be able to produce or control...

And yes, I agree one must eliminate the other !

I hadn't thought of it that way but I think the same thing.


Thank you for your opinion, which is that of someone who has been on the forum for a long time. This is the kind of thing I wanted to discuss, although it would be nice if someone who has been here for a long time and does not think like you could give us his opinion on the matter.


Not thinking like you, you call it having no clue.



Here you are a little bit right, in most countries of the world there is a mixture of capitalism (freedom of enterprise, respect for private property) with socialism (market regulations and redistribution through taxes), but the picture you paint is almost a caricature, which I will not stop to dismantle because I will not convince you.


If you notice, I said:


I've bolded "we" because I also included myself.



Me too, especially about things like this, which I think is the one that triggered me:


That is a leftist elitist argument that has nothing to do with reality.


Sure.


Thank you for answering that bullshit because then everyone can see that what you said is bullshit. Anyone who sees what I write knows that I did not say that and I have asked you to quote me saying it and you have not done so. I'm not going to waste any more time with you. I'll let others be the judge.

I don't know any other leftist who prefers a central government over a decentralized proletariat controlled system of rule.  True communism is absent of state and includes a perpetual system where each person in the community has a say over what happens in the community, how the means of production are distributed and how public wealth is allocated.  Basically a DAO.

So-called 'Communism' is just a sales pitch for extreme totalitarian centralization of control which is what the marketers are after.  Not surprisingly, that's the way it always works out.  Buyer beware.

To OP, you kind of do not understand the concept of being on the left side, we can live in a decentralysed autonomous system and be left side.

A pig stall is a socialist dream come true.
Free food food for life
Roof over the head
Free vaccines/healthcare
Best of comradery
Just chill day in and out, well time for a nap that meal was heavy

I had a conversation with a socialist who though bitcoin could work within a socialist society.

Didn't pass even the most basic of tests, as in, the proposed method of extreme government control of all portions of the economy is somehow supposed to coincide with a decentralized currency? Ha, good one!

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money. And the rich get very stingy, unfortunately. You'll bring out the guillotines quite quickly.

It is important not to confuse socialism with dictatorship. A genuine socialist government wouldn't be dictatorial.  On the contrary, the socialist movement (which constitutes the bulk of today's worldwide socialist parties) is overwhelmingly pacifist, democratic, and supportive of civil rights, equality and the right of conscience.

Its a really strange phenomenon how righties will convince themselves socialism="big, bad government controls everything" then bury their heads in the sand and never bother to entertain leftist theory while constantly complaining about "socialism"

The theory is fairly broadly understood.  The practice is well documented and observable...and typically abysmal.

I used to consider myself a 'Socialist' back when I considered the term to mean just society working together to build a better life for all.  When I realized that the 'new' definition was command control of the economy and means of production I ran screaming.  When I grew up that was called Communism (and without exception resulted in a nightmarish a dystopia.  And rapidly.)

Bait and switch.  Just like 'vaccines' which, once indemnification laws were put in place for them, were re-defined so that almost any medication can take on that label and legal protection.

I've read that 'Left wing' relates to the devil sitting on the left shoulder, and Leftists (at least now and probably before also) seem to take delight in lying and deceit to achieve their goals.  At least much more-so than your average right-wing reactionary who are considered 'slow' and 'stupid' by the intelligentsia leftists/pinkos.  It's something more than simple mental deficiencies which make a person prone to honesty, and a lot of the reactionaries understand the pinko ways and means just fine.  That's why  I don't really mind being mistaken for or labeled a 'right winger' even while a lot of my preferences and philosophies are hold-overs from my 'socialist' years.

Everyone wants to live better but there are some people that are willing to literally sacrifice other's opportunities for them to live better.

Source: I am Venezuelan. I am not told these things, I see them and live them.



So it will work next time, wont it?


Edit: grammar.