progressive bitcoiners?

[ronimacarroni]

I've been lurking this forum and found out that some pro bitcoiners are agaisnt capitalism.
I'm like wow really?
How hypocritical can you be.
Bitcoins is like the embodiment of capitalism.

[hayek]

Capitalism is a buzz word.

You say it and regardless of what you say afterwards people have an idea in their mind. This is American culture. We're told everyday that capitalism is a system of rich white men using their power to obtain more power - at the cost of the "little guy"

If you try to explain that capitalism is just a word used to describe voluntary interaction/trade people blow their tops. It's brainwashing at a macro level. Everyone is circle jerking to one another making fun of the one thing that could actually save them. This is how governments maintain their control.

It's also why anarchy is synonymous with chaos, disorder and violence. When in fact anarchy encompasses capitalism.

[Kluge]

Bitcoin's a tool, not (necessarily) some soap box microphone.

Bitcoin can be used to change the world, and the change it brings is solely in the hands of the users. The change is not predefined, and it may not be something we want, so it's up to us to use the tools in a way we find to be "good."

[Rampion]

You can be against capitalism, you can even be against any form of *money*, and still be pro-bitcoin just because it could be a big threat to the bankers and other financial terrorist scum.

You can have radical views, and still be willing to fight for small and feasible goals that improve society and solve *some* of the problems, even if you think that this goals are by no means a solution for *all* the problems.

I will give you a concrete example: Noam Chomsky defines himself as an anarchist, and still he always said he votes often in local elections. Obviously this statement is very much criticized by radical anarchists, who see any action that could legitimate the State (ie, voting) as a treason to the anarchist cause. Chomsky always argued that even if his ideal society would have no rulers and no state, there are some local issues that impact the day-by-day lives of citizens that are relevant enough for him to go to vote. Making a long story short, he says that he believes on voting in favor of something that will make society a better, more fair place, and that improvement could be a step towards your end goal (anarchism in his case).

Being myself someone who never voted in his life (I never had the stomach for it, and I think I never will), Noam's seems to me like a pretty reasonable approach. Same thing applies for anti-capitalists who are pro bitcoin. What is ridiculous is to state that FIAT money, inflationary policies and keynesianism should be more "anti-capitalist friendly" than austrian economics and a currency with a fixed supply (as many "progressive capitalist" argue). First and foremost, no monetary policy is "anti-capitalist friendly", and in fact keynesianism has always been a lifeline for capitalism, precisely during the times it was shaking the most.

[hayek]

in fact keynesianism has always been a lifeline for capitalism, precisely during the times it was shaking the most.

Could you go in to this a bit more? I'm not trying to start a war I'm just curious what you are saying. I see no way for Keynesianism to ever benefit capitalism. In fact, to me, Keynesianism is just blatant theft.

Oh and Noam self-identifies as an anarchist but I believe he specifically identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist. For me, that's an oxymoron. But what do I know, I think AnCap is the only viable form of anarchy that has been discovered to date. Everything else is just a government civic existing under the umbrella of anarchy - which is no different from what we have now. It's just limited to a small number of players embedded and associated with the upper echelon of government.

[RodeoX]

There is room for many opinions here. The math of the bitcoin protocol is independent of politics. I think capitalism and democracy are good systems when not corrupted.   

[pxtang]

At the end of the day, Bitcoin is just another currency, and how you spend it is up to you. Bitcoin could be used in a Communist or Socialist government as well. It's the applications and economic structure of a society that determines if it's capitalist or not. I don't think currency necessarily changes much.

[metal_jacke1]

I find it interesting that everyone embraces their "opinion" whether it be capitalist or socialist...etc etc..and assume a moral high ground yet be completely ignorant of the "human" factor of society regardless of how it's managed. People are people.

Some people think that there will be a Utopia if their ideological, howbeit partisan, values were more widely embraced.

Sad thing is that there will never be a Utopia, there will always be wars, and there will always be somebody ripping you off. Why? Because that's what humans do. And there's nothing you can do about it. Only to arm yourself with knowledge and just protect yourself from a ravenous world. Total Depravity.

[Rampion]

in fact keynesianism has always been a lifeline for capitalism, precisely during the times it was shaking the most.

Could you go in to this a bit more? I'm not trying to start a war I'm just curious what you are saying. I see no way for Keynesianism to ever benefit capitalism. In fact, to me, Keynesianism is just blatant theft.

Oh and Noam self-identifies as an anarchist but I believe he specifically identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist. For me, that's an oxymoron. But what do I know, I think AnCap is the only viable form of anarchy that has been discovered to date. Everything else is just a government civic existing under the umbrella of anarchy - which is no different from what we have now. It's just limited to a small number of players embedded and associated with the upper echelon of government.

in fact keynesianism has always been a lifeline for capitalism, precisely during the times it was shaking the most.

Could you go in to this a bit more? I'm not trying to start a war I'm just curious what you are saying. I see no way for Keynesianism to ever benefit capitalism. In fact, to me, Keynesianism is just blatant theft.

Oh and Noam self-identifies as an anarchist but I believe he specifically identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist. For me, that's an oxymoron. But what do I know, I think AnCap is the only viable form of anarchy that has been discovered to date. Everything else is just a government civic existing under the umbrella of anarchy - which is no different from what we have now. It's just limited to a small number of players embedded and associated with the upper echelon of government.

On Keynesianism: capitalism means "private ownership of means of production", while Keynesianism is just a kind of monetary policy. In a time where a huge crisis was spreading poverty and hunger among the general population (1929), something that could have threatened the belief in the capitalist system (in fact communism was quickly spreading in Europe), Keynesianism come to the rescue by reactivating the US economy, giving an "extra ball" to a system that could have collapsed. This has happened over and over, Keynesianism is by no means "anti-capitalist", because by no means it discusses the private ownership of means of production - its just a type of monetary policy that can be enforced in a capitalist society.

On anarchism: the oxymoron is anarcho-capitalism. The point of anarchism is to have "no ruler", private or public, the philosophical point is to live without any coercion or hierarchies. Capitalism is coercitive and hierarchical by nature: there will always be bosses (the ones owning the means of production: factories, land) who will tell others what to do - those others will not own their time, because they will have to rent it in order to survive.

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is not OK with "public" rulers but is very OK with "private" rulers. They want something similar to the middle ages: no state, no government, the wealthiest rule and that's it. Someone wealthier than you could come and buy himself a bigger army and take your land, so you need to compete to be wealthier as its the only way to be sure you will be OK. In fact, Rothbardians love to put Medieval Iceland as an example of "anarcho-capitalism". Pretty cool stuff BTW.

About anarcho-syndicalism: its just a concrete way of organizing the economy in an anarchist society, and BTW is the only "way" that has been "tested" in a medium-sized area for aprox. 8 years (Aragón, in Spain, between 1930 and 1938). An example of an anarcho-syndicalist society: the workers OWN the fruits of their labour (so the workers OWN the land and the factories they are working in, etc - this is a basic principle of anarchism, torn apart by Rothbard in his ill-conceived interpretation of anarchism), and workers and only the workers decide what to do with those fruits. There is no "civic government", there is no "upper echelon", everything would be decided directly by people itself in assemblies. The central point of anarcho-syndicalism is WORK, so people would freely associate themselves depending on what kind of work they do. There would be no "California" or "Switzerland", you would have "the union of blacksmiths of the Orange County", etc... So, imagine you work making cars in a factory in Detroit: you would directly decide in an assembly how to manage production, what to do with those cars, etc. (in anarcho-syndicalism a "free market" is possible, on the contrary on Kropotkin's anarcho-communism is pretty much pointless). You could also decide in your assembly to be part of the "federation of car factories of Detroit", that would have its own assembly representing their associates, maybe getting better conditions from the "federal union of steel miners" who sell you the steel... And so on, anarcho-syndicalism is basically an "onion structure" of federated assemblies where no one is "elected" or "chosen", everyone participates directly in decision-making. If you want to go deeper, the book that set the fundamental principles of anarcho-syndicalism is Rudolf Rocker's "anarchosydicalism: theory and practice".

At the end of the day, Bitcoin is just another currency, and how you spend it is up to you. Bitcoin could be used in a Communist or Socialist government as well.

Not it could not. A communist/socialist government would NEVER use a commodity which supply they cannot control as a currency.

[MinerMongo]

It always amazes me how some people get themselves all sweaty and bothered over words. It seems of late Capitalism and Anarchy are two of those words. I'd bet some folks just lose their lid when they hear Anarchocapitalism.

To me the term capitalism means, as has been pointed out, Me controling my productivity. Further, Anarchy, in my mind, does not mean chaos. Instead it means freedom from a central government.

To me mining for coins is both capitalism AND Anarchy. And damn if it doesn't smell good. Until some fool from the government tries to step in and steal a piece of our pie.

[Rampion]

It always amazes me how some people get themselves all sweaty and bothered over words. It seems of late Capitalism and Anarchy are two of those words. I'd bet some folks just lose their lid when they hear Anarchocapitalism.

To me the term capitalism means, as has been pointed out, Me controling my productivity. Further, Anarchy, in my mind, does not mean chaos. Instead it means freedom from a central government.

To me mining for coins is both capitalism AND Anarchy. And damn if it doesn't smell good. Until some fool from the government tries to step in and steal a piece of our pie.

Your definition of capitalism is just wrong.

Capitalism means "private ownership of means of production". An individual may work in a factory, but he does not own the factory, he does not control the production nor the fruits of his labor.

Communism just means "public ownership of means of production", in this case being "public" a synonym of state.

In anarchism the workers are the ones owning the means of production and controlling directly the production process and the fruit of their labour.

In fact, Bakunin said in the XIX Century that communism was going to "the biggest lie in this century", as for him it was just a form of "state capitalism". The crucial point was the time of the workers. In capitalism, you will rent your time ("wage slavery") and do whatever you are told to do, or GTFO. In communism, the state apparatus will dictate what you need to do with your time, and you will not have a word on how the fruits of your work are used. In anarchism there is no ruler (not private, not public), the workers decide first hand how to organize productivity and what to do.

[b!z]

There is room for many opinions here. The math of the bitcoin protocol is independent of politics. I think capitalism and democracy are good systems when not corrupted.   

I share this opinion. Bitcoin lets us free our money from greedy people and it gives us control over our finances.

[greyhawk]

Bitcoin lets us free our money from greedy people

[b!z]

[greyhawk]

[marcovaldo]

Where did you see that bitcoiners are against capitalism? They are most likely against banks...
And I am bitcoiner and capitalist 


Most people try to make money out of bitcoin.

[ronimacarroni]

In anarchism the workers are the ones owning the means of production and controlling directly the production process and the fruit of their labour.

That would end up turning into "worker federation", which would in turn, turn into a "workers state" either way.
You can't have socialism without a state.

[greyhawk]

In anarchism the workers are the ones owning the means of production and controlling directly the production process and the fruit of their labour.

That would end up turning into "worker federation", which would in turn, turn into a "workers state" either way.
You can't have socialism without a state.

You can, but it won't last long. That's a big point people keep forgetting here. Humans naturally tend to flock together and organize in what they expect to be a mutually beneficial way. This organization mutates before long into some kind of government and state.

So, even if Bitcoins should succeed wildly and bitcoiners abolish all government, it won't take all to long until Warlord Forgngard "Blood Skull Eagle" Kaptirgirv will rule the "Glorious Provinciality of Snowhutistan" with an iron hand and martial law.

[Rampion]

In anarchism the workers are the ones owning the means of production and controlling directly the production process and the fruit of their labour.

That would end up turning into "worker federation", which would in turn, turn into a "workers state" either way.
You can't have socialism without a state.

Anarchism is not socialism, and a workers federation wouldn't mean a "workers state" (being "state" a synonymous of government) - that's nonsense. In an anarchist society there is no central authority, no government, all decisions are taken directly by the workers in assemblies, there are no "public servants" or politicians - in an anarchist society everybody is directly involved in the decision making, every single individual is a political entity. The fundamental basis of anarchism is non-hierarchical free association, and this is why "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is hierarchical by very nature.

First of all, anarchism is a philosophy. An anarchist would never give orders, and would never accept orders: not from his "president", not from his "boss". Anarchism is about individual freedom, it is about the people being in control (of their time, their work, etc.) during every single moment of their life.

Anarchism worked very well in Aragón (northern Spain) between 1930 and 1938, until they were slaughtered by both Stalinist-led troops and fascists, who joined forces to destroy the "anarchist threat" (2 million people fought for anarchism in Spain during the civil war). During this time in Aragon there was no state, no private ownership of means of production, no police, no military, and an incredibly low crime rate. Please note we are not speaking about a "Kibutz" or a small town, we are speaking about a region with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. They even printed their own "money" (basically vouchers) and traded with the rest of Spain, which in that time was a Republican State. If you are interested in this amazing part of history, obviously forgotten by history books, I recommend you "Anarchism, Libertarian Communism and the State: C.N.T. in Zaragoza and Aragon", written by the British historian Kelsey Graham.