[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/

File: 1631401681889-0.jpg (76.07 KB, 700x556, Venezuela currency.jpg)

File: 1631401681889-1.jpg (436.94 KB, 1170x780, 1631385554436.jpg)


Left side is based, right side is literally Hitler and destroying the planet.



Fuck your porkycoins.


Found the IMF


The only people into crypto are junkies and addicts buying narcotics on the dark net


Only reason Bitcoin is worth as much as it is worth now is cause it's used to buy cp and drugs. Turns out a whole lot of rich westerners are druggie pedophiles, who coulda known.


Bitcoin could've been ok if it was still an alternative currency unlike now


No, the only reason it's valued so high right now is suburban wh*tes with disposable income and limited class mobility are trying to use it as an investment vehicle to get rich. Some breeder I know is several thousand dollars in and spends her time at work watching line graphs of btc and gme prices.


IMF are the good guys, you fucking incel. They provide aid to struggling communities and help prevent financial insurrections.


The tether bank run will bring massive lulz and it cant be far if I manage to sell rare pepes for thousand dollars.


Privatization of the financial system is something Id rather avoid, you retard



forgot your /s there ?

why don't you uuuh… fuck off back to r/neoliberal you ginormous stooge


meanwhile, at the federal bank of america….


Haven't most druglords switched to Monero by now? BTC is compromised.



Crypto is capitalism on steroids. Supporting crypto over fiat is basically saying every prole should lose money and supporting a new elite made of racist white suburbanites, drug dealers and pedos.


Bitcoin is the exact opposite of what any beleaguered country like El Salvador needs. It is implemented as an official currency because the Salvadorean President (who illegally removed term limits) needs to distract the public. Bitcoin, although intended as a currency, could never be a functional currency on the basis that it is deeply unstable. The Gravel Institute was right to call it a scam.


>Salvador implements bitcoin
Guess the leader has something to do with the Colombians?


Because progressivism is the future, and being a tankie is for incel losers who "hate the establishemnt" without realizing that if it wasn't for "establishment" we'd be ruled by fascists.


>muh fascists aren't fascists unlike their fascists


File: 1631714095687.png (161.76 KB, 910x1056, tanky.png)

>choose the lesser evil
a few year later
>choose progressive fascism

>being a tankie

If you continue with the blackmail, eventually people are going to be doing a tankie


kys retarded faggot, I am baffled someone could find his way here and spout such stupid uneducated neolib bullshit
all IMF personal will be hanged during world revolution


people largely don't use bitcoins as a medium of exchange, it's largely pure speculation


>Capture d’écran
stopped reading there


Speaking of Bitcoin, does anyone know what’s going on with Cuba and Bitcoin? Are they doing the same thing as Bukelele


what's wrong with btc?


What’s good about it?


I don't know, I've been avoiding cryptos since forever because I thought they were a huge scam so I literally know very little about them.

Now, an alternative to the dollar should be a good thing right? albeit btc seems like an speculative asset first and foremost, what about it when the bubble pops?


I think even an alternative to the dollar is pretty moot, but I made a very speculative post here before about it that just got shot down by people saying “tl;dr”.

Basically, BTC was designed to be a commodity money like gold, but it fails at that because unlike other commodities its price isn’t connected to the real cost of producing it. New Bitcoin comes from the block reward, which was arbitrarily scheduled out by Satoshi because he wanted it to reach 0 and cap out the amount of Bitcoin in existence. This means that unlike normal commodities, when the price goes up and miners start investing more in mining, the cost per Bitcoin produced just goes up because it is set at an arbitrary amount (right now I think it is 2.5). A normal commodity like a car would see more produced if you built more car factories.

If Bitcoin was structured like this so that the block reward was a ratio of the hashrate, then it’s price would have more stabilizing market forces on it to converge on its value (in the Marxist sense). Bitcoin doesn’t have a value because of the arbitrary block reward, or rather the “value” it may have at any moment actually follows the price rather than the reverse. The competition between miners would result in a downward pressure on the price to come closer to its cost of production. Any jackass who buys Bitcoin has a break even point of whatever price they bought in, but the competitive miners will have an average point between them that is the cost of producing Bitcoin. So as a group they’re going to be bidding down the price closer to that cost, like a normal market. On the flip side, when the market price goes below that cost, miners will start mining other coins or otherwise sell off their equipment in order to not lose a ton of money, and the volume of exchange will decline, putting upwards pressure on the price to approach its value again.

So it would be more self-regulating. Right now its design makes it get caught in feedback loops.



But the second part of that post is noting one of the reasons people don’t like dollars and the implications that has for crypto that nobody ever seems to acknowledge. People don’t like dollars because dollars are the property of the US government, and buying and selling dollars effectively empowers the US government to pursue its policy. It can do this by printing dollars, which in the most crude way frightens libertarians because of “inflation”. In reality inflation is negligible, and the real global danger here that plays itself out again and again is the USA has the power to print dollars with mostly no consequences, so it actually CAN use the volume of dollar exchanges on world markets to basically get free money to pursue its policies. And this is entirely due to the volume, the sheer liquidity of dollars makes it so that even if you print billions in the medium to long term it is just a blip on the markets for dollars, so the exchange rate isn’t going to dump over it.

But this is technically true for any fiat currency to a degree. It might not be billions, but any currency can theoretically endure some money printing and not dump its exchange rate as long as the money printing isn’t way out of proportion to the volume of normal exchange. But if you do it a lot the effect will accumulate and you will get a fall in the exchange rate, so you need to “justify” the printing by investing in productive activity that grows demand for the currency.

The point of saying all that is, people don’t like dollars because they understand that they benefit the interests of the state that controls production of the dollars, the USA, and the implication of that isn’t that you stop states from controlling their currencies. You just make your own currency that you collectively control , ie make your own state.

Why hasn’t anyone done that before? Well they’ve actually tried to an extent, there are lots of historical micro currencies out there, but the main problem is you can’t just make a random fiat currency and expect it to have a stable price. Dollars only have stability because of how huge the volume is, there aren’t any players in the market that can manipulate the price. There are just too many dollars. So they always have to be pegged to some larger currency like the dollar to stabilize, which takes away most of their authority.

But crypto offers a possible way around this predicament I haven’t seen many contemplate. ICOs and similar things have approximated it, but for myopic personal gain. You can achieve a degree of price stability prior to peak volume by simply having a real commodity money, as I described before, but you can also have a network participant that has the power to produce Bitcoin by fiat. You can mix the two together to basically bootstrap a state into existence.


File: 1631803251299.jpg (451.76 KB, 1120x747, soviet money.jpg)

So basically you use the ability for commodities to self-regulate their prices in competitive markets to start a currency, but you attach an entity to it that can also print it. Call this "state" a soviet. It can be structured however, but imagine it is run by a group of working class organizations. The soviet would have to be careful and not immediately start printing money, it should wait until there are either big price swings or a larger volume (though it doesn't necessarily have to be bitcoin sized).

What does it do with the money? It should use it to increase the volume of transactions, like states normally should do or have to do when they print money to not cause falls in the exchange rate. It can do this by simply buying productive assets and renting them to their users. I was thinking housing, so basically the soviet socialized housing by buying it up and having rents payable in the crypto (though it could be the crypto and dollars, which would just make it so that when the exchange rate of the crypto to dollars is declining the housing stock will tend to put some pressure on the price to rise back to its value because they'll start buying it to pay rents).

But wouldn't this just make the soviet a landlord? Not necessarily, because the soviet can genuinely socialize the housing by having all of its renters join as voting members, and it can reform the multi-family housing into housing cooperatives. Since the renters will now mutually own their housing through the soviet and their housing co-ops, the rents can be lowered below normal market rates while maintaining a small fee (kind of like a tax) to keep growing the volume of exchanges.

But the same model could be applied to other things. The soviet can buy the assets of various businesses that it could own mutually, the property is socialized to the soviet, and it rents it out to the operators who are organized in cooperatives. This allows for industry scale cooperation through the soviet, basically an amount of planning within the restrictions of the wider market (since this can't transcend the market, you need a huge scale to even approach total market subordination).


File: 1631803790361.jpg (87.83 KB, 976x549, rubles.jpg)

But as a endnote to this, the big problem with the model is it starts to diverge a little too much from what exists. I previously said it wasn't utopian, but now I do think it is approaching that fuzzy line because it is very hard to conceive of convincing existing working class orgs to embark on that kind of thing, especially before cryptocurrencies are viciously legislated into some institutional form that precludes the possibility of this structure. The working class orgs are too risk-averse, they just want to keep beating a drum they're familiar with like bolstering unionization through familiar channels (even if those channels are familiar due to their long history of institutionalization and failure).


File: 1631816240607.jpg (31.51 KB, 524x226, lv.jpg)


why not base something like this on actual labor vouchers. Internally it would function like cybernetic planning and externally like commodity money.


I’d have to give that some thought. To be honest this is where some knowledge of international currency markets and policy would be helpful, because basically that shit is all very relevant to the model. The Soviet would be like a weird micro economy, but it wouldn’t necessarily be localized to a nation. The exchange between the crypto and USD would be like foreign trade between the Soviet’s economy and other economies. I know that there are considered to be certain trade offs with controlling the exchange rate of a currency, but I don’t know enough about it to know what the best policy would be. What you’re describing basically sounds like how China or Cuba might have certain controls on their internal currency vs external currency, or how domestic markets and international markets have access to the currency.

But I also don’t know how feasible it would be just because labor vouchers imply some level of total central control on issuing them I’d think. So maybe the Soviet could issue labor vouchers within its economy, with the property it has already taken control of, but also has the commodity money. But I’m not sure how they’d play into each other, like what the utility of the commodity money is and the labor vouchers are. In my mind the cryptocurrency is kind of transitional, it’s just a way to exploit how the system works to ironically start expropriating capitalists. But at a certain size the cryptocurrency can just be abandoned, because the Soviet will own the property and the workers have control of the Soviet so they can do whatever they want. If the cryptocurrency has outlived its utility, leave it behind and do something like offer to exchange all the internally circulating Soviet crypto for labor vouchers or whatever to end the money cycle.


What I'm proposing will lead to people using the labour vouchers as intended by the central planner or as commodity money in the capitalist market, based on where they get a better deal. The interests of the prole become central. This will force the planning system(s) to be ruthlessly efficient with the labor time of workers. That is something capitalists no longer do. It will also put a premium on quickly leveling up productivity by improving the productive forces, that also is something that capitalists no longer do. And it will select for planners that can merge their planning system with the planning system of somebody else for increasing their economy of scale as quickly as possible. Which should help counteract the splitting tendency on the left.

You have 2 different phases one with commodity currency and then a second phase with labor vouchers. Your first phase is basically going to be something like primitive accumulation, workers get exploited for surplus so you can accumulate capital. The problem is that we are in late stage capitalism and the most likely scenario is that you will be integrated into the capitalist system and will only be able to complete the first phase.

Avoid extracting surplus from workers as long as capitalism exists so that there is no risk that capitalists could capture it. Look for ways to grow at the expense of capitalism, preferably by extracting from big capitalists. The capitalists cannibalized the feudal system. To build a new system that comes after capitalism you have to cannibalize capitalism the same way. You also have to build your information system so that it empowers the proles. So what ever capital goods you have should not be legible to capitalists. When a capitalist makes an analysis of your operation they should not be able to see capital goods in your system, so they don't know where the levers of power are, only workers should be able to get this kind of information. Look at all the information that capitalists are aggregating that enables them to have control over the economy, and avoid having that kind of information. Next look at what kind of information that workers lack to wield influence and put that into your system instead.

Unique IPs: 26

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]