Today on twitter I stumbled across a thread about web3. There was a political compass meme that put Web3 in the LibLeft quadrant and MMT in AuthLeft quadrant. Some users quibbled that Web3 is actually LibRight. I am immediately skeptical of any of these classifications because the implication is that MMT is somehow an explicitly "statist" or "authoritarian" doctrine. I am also skeptical that Web3, given its proximinity with shitcoin technology and teh blockchain and NFTs, that it could ever be considered "leftist." I decided, however, to attempt to research this issue further to see if I could find anything of value in Web3 that might be conducive to bringing about revolution. I went to the following site for reading:>https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-web3/
FreeCodeCamp is generally a website that one goes to for various sorts of programming tutorials. Content that is political is not common on this site, but I think this article in question might be the most mystified tech literature that I have read in awhile.
Most of the FreeCodeCamp article on web3 talks about cryptocurrency wallets, the blockchain, and how great they think it is that there are no "gatekeepers." Standard blockchain propaganda that lacks any mention of the fact that the blockchain is environmentally catastrophic given the obscene amount of electrical energy necessary to keep it running.
>see pic related
How are tokens and tokenization any different from shares?
This is extremely reminiscent, to my eyes, of the issue that befalls so-called NFTs. It is seemingly another reinvention of a thing that already exists, in the case of NFTs a reinvention of a deed of ownership, in the case of tokenization a reinvention of shares. How can anyone ascribe revolutionary value to this?
>re: DAOs (pic related #2)
What is a DAO if not a worker cooperative with additional steps? Am I understanding this correctly? While worker cooperatives are definitely an improvement in comparison to the predominant corporate structure endemic to Capitalism, there already exists a critique of worker cooperatives. Fundamentally the problem with worker coops is that worker cooperatives merely ameliorate conditions under Capitalism, but ultimately do not hasten revolutionary processes, and are still subject to the requirement of all private firms under Capitalism to "compete" that they may survive. There is ample praise to be made for Mondragon, for example, but such an organization still has to behave in a specific way in order to survive in markets dominated by private Capitalists, and at times has to compromise its own values.
Just to be sure that I am not misrepresenting DAOs, I went to https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5rGkkEfRa_a-6VEWw
which provides additional explanation.>DAOs seek to:>Provide members with a voice through governance.>Flatten hierarchy and create fluid workstreams.>Allocate resources to achieve a core mission.>A Telegram group with 10 members and 1 ETH is a DAO.
Does the DAO actually solve a problem of organizing? Or is it simply a modern reinvention of a form that already exists? If so, why are people acting like it is "new" and "innovative"? How do we respond to these notions?