kenny 🎩
@kenny
I think the reason for this absolute hatred of crypto is that the predominant modern leftist mindset depends on a belief in governance making everything better how to fix healthcare? more government involvement how to fix income inequality? more government involvement crypto is an oil and water situation when it comes to this mindset one of the most OBVIOUS governmental duties is issuing currency crypto being legitimate would mean that this, a basic core use case of governments, is outperformed by the free market it's easier to block out the possibility of this being true than to adjust your fundamental worldviews
19 replies
14 recasts
124 reactions
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
Until we’ve removed the power of capital, neither state, nor free market interventions can ever serve the people. That’s what I find funny about these arguments. Neither side gets it. Crypto and decentralization provide the tools to undermine the dumb ideas of their creators, fortunately. But the “free market” is only possible without capitalism.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
0xl0wlevelcr0w
@l0wlevelcr0w
Can you even remove the power from capital when capital's essential function is the facilitation of resources? The only way I see is if a central power not capital is responsible for all resources, and that doesn't sound pleasant.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
No capitalism ≠capital are not exactly the same things. You surely mean money when you say capital. But capital is both money it a capitalist system and all goods that make money (known somewhat controversially as “private property”). And capitalism specifically is the system under which those with money and other forms of private property can own the things they “fund” The alternative is not state ownership as that is almost identical to private ownership. The alternative is collective ownership by the people who use the things. Cooperatives, guilds, associations, collectives. I’ve written a lot about why I believe money is useful and even markets. But I see no redeeming case for protecting the private property rights of capitalists who are effectively just the aristocracy or this system.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0xl0wlevelcr0w
@l0wlevelcr0w
I know what capital is. I think the issue is I was thinking you meant you could separate the power of capital, however defined, and capital istelf, however defined, but you're saying instead that power/capital is either concentrated to private owners or can/should/might be distributed through collective action.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
Yes that’s right. Sorry not trying to say that you are ignorant but I felt it necessary to clarify the terms such that we could have productive discussion. Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. Often this is known as libertarian socialism, market socialism, market anarchism, or under the broad and ill-defined “democratic socialism” but the latter can mean a lot of different things. I agree that a centralized bureaucratic power is bad. I’m open to both wholly decentralized power and extremely democratized control over one agent that plans and organizes (democratic socialism, liquid democracy, etc) But I do think that money is a useful tool, markets are a helpful organization of planning and exchange. It’s profit and power defined on wealth(two symptoms of capitalism as a mode of production) that are the real issues preventing human progress.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
