Is cryptocurrency compatible with socialism and communism...

>The way it's community-driven and anti-establishment are leftist traits
That doesn't make sense though. All leftist governments have been the exact opposite of this in every way. "Liberalism" is not the same thing as "leftism".

The only thing socialism and communism are compatible with is abject poverty and food insecurity

>in before Glavlit propaganda

blow it out your ass you weak dick control freak loser faggot lmao

Attached: lmfao.jpg (971x1302, 270K)

"Workers" can't decide anything because "workers" is just an abstract idea representing a group of people, and an abstract idea can't make decisions. Only individuals make decisions, whether you're in a communist or a capitalist system.

The whole point of communism is that there is no private property, and the whole point of currency is that you're trading it for someone else's property.

And this is precisely why communism doesn't work. Still, OP has brought up some interesting food for thought.

Look at a political compass

Yes, that's correct.

I'm sure you have some idea of what you think "leftist" means, but if you use a word to mean something different from what everyone else means by it you can't effectively communicate.

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with mutualism, syndicalism, and libertarian socialism.

HIGH IQ BASED AND REDPILLED POST

BTC will be good for poorfags though(after the economy recovers from the financial system collapsing) because a return to HARD MONEY will encourage wealth saving and real investment instead of out current ponzi economy based around radical wagecuckism and planned GDP growth via obsolescence consumption

Tell me about a country that provides evidence against what I said in the post you replied to.

No that is incorrect. Socialism and anarchism where synonyms until the latter half of the previous century. See the Spanish Civil War for historical context.

Please refer to Libertarian forms of socialism and communism exist. anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism to add to the list.

Theory is different than practice. You are posting about practice, which is fine, but OP is asking about theory.

well semantics aside.
the point is that people would be able to mint their own currency.

Paris Commune
Free Territory of Makhnovia
Zapatistas

So Bakunin was just Marx's gay lover when Engels was busy?

>incentivize non productive "labor"
yikes

>people had some idealistic ideas about how socialism would work when they were just getting started and they only had experience so far with rapacious robber barons and feudal lords
You don't say
What's the point of theory if it's completely contradicted by practice? Usually that's when you throw out the theory. Don't coopt scientific terms like "theory" if you're going to do the exact opposite of what a scientist would do

These will actually provide some real evidence that I was wrong in my post, right? You're not just wasting my time, right?

>he unironically believes in communism in [current year + 4]

What kind of weak, pathetic retarded ingrate cock sucking fruit could be so stupid? Naturally the same kind of people that raid this board daily from their tranny owned and operated closet on 8gag

>muh anarchism

Christ

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

Attached: Reagan Gang.png (2324x1489, 406K)

well the people mining the worker coins would probably be neets that would earn a fraction of what people with jobs earn so there would still be an incentive to work.

>I understand that the end goal of communism is the abolition of money,

Shit at last someone who gets it.

>communist
> governments

>is Bitcoin a system built on transparency and honest compatible with Communism a system built on deceit and theft

No, now gtfo commie.

Attached: 1557878780752.jpg (798x436, 53K)

Communism is a crackpot ideology that has never taken off anywhere and so is no different from something like anarcho-capitalism in that sense, or it's a real ideology that has taken off around the world and has led to the results it has led to. Pick one.

Educate who you will, Lenin is a piece of shit, and he prooved. He is not a communism, rather a dictator. He killed the Kronstadt workers.

Lenin plagiarized Marx.

Yeah, they want to replace money with "labor credits" which are shoveled into a furnace after being used, distributed based on "social averages" by a volunteer labor ministry that micromanages the minute by minute performance of hundreds of millions of people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: LOLOLOLOLOL.jpg (1280x744, 248K)

>revisionist petit-bourgeoise
die cis scum

>Communism is a crackpot ideology that has never taken off anywhere

Communism cannot take off before capitalism has finished it's development. It's pretty soon (a few decades).

What does that have to do with communism though?

Well, obviously I'm not arguing here in order to convince you since that's never going to be possible with this kind of debate, but all I can say is that a LOT of people have written extensive scholarly treatises on all kinds of subjects, and almost all of them are completely wrong. That's just how things work, finding the truth about things is hard and is rarely done by armchair theorizing. The only thing that makes communism special or even notable in any way is that it was popularized by various horrifying murderous regimes. That doesn't mean that Marx's theories and predictions have any basis in reality.

well the workers would own the means of mobey production.

What can possibly micromanages the work of hundreds of millions of people in the decades to come? What could constitute the function of a volunteer labor ministry in the near future? Ah you're right. We don't have the technology...

Not communism. Money is just numbers or paper. You don't need any labor input to produce it. Communism means the workers have to own the means of production of actual things people use, in some fashion or other.

>inb4 someone gets on my case about saying that paper doesn't require "any" labor input

Cryptocurrency is the antithesis of communism, or that it disproves communism can ever truly exist

Yeah of course. It's communism which is responsible for USSR.
Take a alternate timeline without Marx, and even without that POS Lenin.
Of course, in this alternate reality, Russia would have been peace, harmony, joy. Undoubtedly.

I LOVE TO TALK ABOUT POLITICS

As usual for these sorts of arguments, you read the words I said but substituted some completely unrelated argument that you would have preferred I had made instead. I didn't say that communism was "responsible" for the USSR. I said that without the USSR, communism would be an unremarkable pet theory of a few intellectuals that never went anywhere, and would be relegated to the dustbin of history just like a thousand other such theories.

No, a communist society (in the Marxist sense) is post-scarcity. There would be no ministry to micromanage labour credits in such a future, ministries are for a dictatorship of the proletariat that's hoping to build a communist future, not the communist future itself.
>Marx and Engels maintained that a communist society would have no need for the state as it exists in contemporary capitalist society. The capitalist state mainly exists to enforce hierarchical economic relations, to enforce the exclusive control of property, and to regulate capitalistic economic activities—all of which would be non-applicable to a communist system
>Marx also wrote that between capitalist and communist society, there would be a transitory period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. During this preceding phase of societal development, capitalist economic relationships would gradually be abolished and replaced with socialism. Natural resources would become public property, while all manufacturing centers and workplaces would become socially owned and democratically managed. Production would be organized by scientific assessment and planning, thus eliminating what Marx called the "anarchy in production". The development of the productive forces would lead to the marginalization of human labor to the highest possible extent, to be gradually replaced by automated labor.

How can you prove that? That's like saying if Christianity wasn't adopted by the Roman Empire, it'd be just a fringe Judaism cult that'd have died off by now. Like, maybe, but who the hell knows? There's no way to argue that. And clearly there's something particular about it that this wasn't its fate.

>Production would be organized by scientific assessment and planning
Beautiful application of the passive voice there

I can't prove it, but I don't doubt it either. If it was a good set of ideas, then it should have produced good long-term results, at least once. Why hasn't it?

It's not a theory. It is verified in economy. It's classical economy which is false. But you haven't read Das Kapital. So it's pretty useless to discuss with you. And you won't read it. Not because it's not interesting, but because realistically it's hard and takes a lot of time. Nobody has read the book anyway. And out of those who have, the majority agree with it's author.

No.
A post-scarcity society like Star Trek doesn't use money.
But from a Marxist perspective, using a socialist govermnent to get at communism, a Libra coin managed by the gov would be better than be private coorps.

Attached: IndelibleThreadbareDrongo-max-1mb.gif (600x300, 31K)

Thank god someone who gets it and are not talking shit.

Imagine being so fucking stupid you think communism is a good idea.

Attached: dumbass.png (645x773, 10K)

It's actually making its way to the front of my to-read list, but "reading a book and agreeing enthusiastically with the author" is THE quintessential pleb behavior. Nothing is ever simple, or black and white. I bet if you read a book by L Ron Hubbard, you'd find a lot to agree with in there too.

It was attempted a century too early. Communism, as Marx wrote about in the 1800s, depends on automation to free people from labour. The Soviet Union built a dictatorship of the proletariat to last over a century and automation still wasn't ready to free people from labour.
>Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the "Fragment on Machines", argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in labor needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as "post-scarcity". Marx argued that capitalism—the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation—depends on exploiting the surplus labor of workers, but a post-capitalist society would allow for: The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.
Attempting communism in the 20th century before the tech was advanced enough was as insane as an attempt to implement capitalism in the stone age.

>Why hasn't it?
Because capitalism was/is still deplying it's force. Marx was clear a new society can only exist when all the forced labor created by capitalism has created the condition for a new society to rise. He was clear about this. The time has not come year, but hopefully we are not very far now.

I think you’re the one wasting our time. The easiest way to understand the anti-government left and how it is different from neo-liberalism or on the other hand, social democracy is to read Homage to Catalonia.

That's probably not entirely wrong, but it's also meaningless. The only way to get to the kind of communism Marx envisioned is to go full AI, and not only could he never have anticipated something like AI, it pretty much makes his entire theory obsolete from beginning to end. Capitalism may not withstand the rise of AI, but I'll bet you 1 million labor credits to one satoshi that what we get instead isn't going to be based on this old fart's armchair theories.

Coincidently, I just got done reading a study that concluded the left is more intelligent than the right inb4 “but the Jews lied!”

>end goal of communism is the abolition of money
This was always retarded and Marx, as wrong as he was on some things, never said this either.

>The decentralization could be considered leftist

Attached: 154353976023.png (645x729, 68K)

>Homage to Catalonia.

Am i dreaming or 4channers actually become smart?

> full AI, and not only could he never have anticipated something like AI

The fragment on machines

This user comes across as legitimately smart and has made a few interesting posts. You, on the other hand, are Dunning Kruger to the max

Socialists and Communists get the fucking rope.

Bunch of nonsense

Yes he did in The critique of the Gotha program.

I'll read it, but I'll tell you right now that if he had anticipated AI he would not have focused his theory around labor in the first place.

No
Communists are subhuman
Fuck off

no, (((you))) will have no ability to force people to do what you want if you do not control the money supply. communism has been permanently BTFO by satoshi nakamoto

This only applies to social issues. In economic issues Libertarians/Conservatives beat out Socialists, which proves my point.

Attached: clownsaturated.png (680x680, 111K)

In fairness its a self selecting group that are almost always friendly to the ideas of the author that read Das Kapital. More people should, but people dont like to read things they think they will disagree with. People just crave confirmation bias. I'd recommend some passages from Wealth of Nations to someone hostile to Marx. Smith does not proselytize capitalism, he basically just describes it (including its faults). Or maybe David Ricardo, pic related. Both are even downright hostile to capitalism.

Reading any major economists evaluation makes is pretty clear that capitalism is just a modern version of feudalism. The land holders realized that having serfs farm land isnt the best way to make money. Its way easier to make money building factories and warehouses and have the serfs work in those.

Attached: Ricardo.jpg (900x900, 44K)

Communism is what we had in the early days of humanity. No state, no currency, just tribes hunting gathering food for survival and distributing accoring to each tribe member's needs. Why some people wanna see humanity devolve to such an early stage of human development is a mystery to me

>You, on the other hand, are Dunning Kruger to the max
I don't need to be smart. My talent is to follow smarter people than me, and pretty often i hope, the good ones. I hope you have a talent on your own.

The left is more fashionable among NPC midwits (IQ: 110 - 120) who just want to lead their pathetic lives. Most above that range lean right. There's an autist with the world's highest confirmed IQ who is very right of center.
If the right had an iron grip on cultural institutions, the same midwit cohort would skew right and you'd see "studies" showing that conservatives are "smarter."

Attached: 0fucks.jpg (720x720, 99K)

I'm good at trading, critical thinking, and FPSes. However I admit I don't think I'll ever understand the psychology that leads people to "follow" someone else as if they're not just another flawed human being, instead of trying to improve their own ability to understand the world for themselves

>I'll read it, but I'll tell you right now that if he had anticipated AI he would not have focused his theory around labor in the first place.

Marx's own words, you tell me:
>“Once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the… automatic system of machinery… set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.”
>“Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal or oil just as the worker consumes food to keep up its perpetual motion.”

Fuck those who didn't check you.

Attached: 1550195770742.png (800x778, 328K)

In fairness its a self selecting group that are almost always friendly to the ideas of the author that read Das Kapital
That's true, but what if you also read classical economy and you find it pretty lame? In any case, in classical economy, they don't explain why capitalism is the best system, they explain why it is good because it created wealth, prosperity etc..., but wealth, prosperity are already capitalist categories. So classical economy is not in favor of capitalist, in opposition with another mode of production not based on exchange value, but it starts from the fact that there is only capitalism, and then explain why it's so cool.

>Smith does not proselytize capitalism, he basically just describes it (including its faults). Or maybe David Ricardo, pic related. Both are even downright hostile to capitalism.

Marx work is based largely on Smith an Ricardo. In Das Kapital, he quote them constantly.

Cryptocurrency works like this. You carry around your hardware wallet with your savings on it and type in the numbers you need to send it to on the computer at a place you are going to buy stuff at. Moral of the story is it's going to be gay

>30% tax rate (that's with zero net investment or products going to public services-the author admitting it would be higher, and probably far higher, than his model shows)
>l*teral supply and demand economics for what consumer goods are allowed to exist
>wages dependent on how "intense" your labor is-as determined by your peers (the ugly incel Virgin enthusiastic wage slave undoubtedly being underpaid relative to the Chad slacker)

Wow it's almost like what we have now except the entire economy is controlled by the same people that run the DMV instead of entrepreneurs. SO PROGRESSIVE OMG

Attached: HAHAHAHAHA.jpg (1164x936, 471K)

Communists unironically hate success based off merit.

Attached: smoothbull.jpg (774x850, 93K)

Interesting, but again - if he could have anticipated AI, he wouldn't have focused his theory on labor. What does it mean for the "workers" to own the means of production if human labor is economically worthless anyway? We seem to be on the verge of skipping straight from capitalism to full-scale AI based automation, without any intervening communist stage. All we got was some brutal "dictatorships of the proletariat". Once you have AI automation, humans get cut out of the production cycle entirely. The only question is how to implement some kind of democratic governance to control the AI systems and distribution of resources, which is certainly just what he would have wanted for a communist society, but isn't something we actually need his theory for.

checked
commies are parasites

Attached: 1557630442080.gif (506x422, 254K)

Some people are just too much smart for you in a particular domain. Take FPS. If Fatal1ty was to coach you like every day, wouldn't you just shut up and listen to what he says, allowing him to format you into a beast, or would you systematically criticize and overthink every advice he gives?

The guy who introduced me to Marx is extremely smart. He has read and mastered almost every modern and ancient philisopher. So i admit, i accept a lot of what he says. Doesn't mean i wouldn't be able to criticize him in like 20 years, or in other domains that economy/philosophy. But for now, it would be like a 12 year old child trying to fight mike Tyson.

Imagine being such a mindless NPC that you can't even form your own opinions on things. You just listen to whatever "experts" say and then give up.

Thank god I wasn't born a brainlet retard like you

It wouldn't necessarily be communism, but you could use a blockchain to help manage a free market worker led economy.

I could see blockchain tech being used in small scale worker owned collectives as a better way to do the complex bookkeeping that's required to pay dividends to workers or make worker led decisions. Like using the blockchain to keep track of worker owned stocks and to initiate anonymous worker votes via their individual stock managed on a blockchain. Or even keep track of their individual hours worked per week and their productivity and use that to weigh worker votes in a way that the collective has agreed upon. You could do this now but the amount of record keeping to pull it off would be a nightmare for a small company. Eventually someone will turn it all into a phone app that the workers can download and use to manage their holdings individually and initiate votes.

Attached: ricardo2.gif (320x180, 764K)

>wouldn't you just shut up and listen to what he says, allowing him to format you into a beast, or would you systematically criticize and overthink every advice he gives?
I would shut up and listen to what he says, then systematically criticize it and think about it. That's how you learn, bro. If you aren't doing that, you aren't learning - you're just parroting words you don't understand.

I can't believe people are sitting here in this thread still trying to unironically claim they have the secret knowledge to make communism work. I bet there are people out there with cushy university jobs that just wank about this bullshit all day.

Note how these faggots always imagine themselves as the directors of labor, never the peasant working in the collective farms. Their fantasies always amount to control and an over inflated sense of their own intelligence

Attached: bitcoinyellowman.png (363x275, 118K)

I mean, you seem to be imagining I would pick up Das Kapital and hiss at it like a vampire in sunlight and try to force myself to read it through deep emotional pain because he's a dirty commie. In fact it's exactly the opposite, just like you when I read an intellectual book I invariably find myself agreeing with almost everything that's being said. I'm sure I would have just the same result with Marx as I have with everything else. That's why I have to make a conscious effort to suppress that impulse and actually think. Critical thinking and forming counterarguments to stuff written by a serious thinker is actual work, reading a book and feeling good about it is not.

Smith and Ricardo were describing Capitalism in the shadow of full on feudalism. At least in capitalism the workers could quit the factory if things got really bad. In feudalism the serfs couldn't leave the land they had to work without permission from their lord. That's a pretty big upgrade as far as the serfs were concerned. On the other hand it was a big upgrade for the feudal lord too, he didn't have to provide housing or protection for his new independent contractor workers.

Marx was right to criticize capitalism aka: the idea of an investing class that owns the means of production. He was right about the labor theory of value too. But his solution proved to be kinda unworkable and just led to a new different ruling class, new boss same as the old boss.

I dont know what the solution to the capitalist class owning everything is. But i cant help but think ANY decentralization introduced by crypto into the system has to be an improvement.

Attached: 1540142955_2309-1G220163054.gif (320x240, 393K)

I forgot to mention Marx and historical materialism, probably Marx's best contribution. He and Engles basically invented a new way to look at the arc of history. I think it has a lot of merit and is better than the this happened then this happened way of looking at history.

People's actual everyday life and their lived experiences drive history forward, this shit isn't just some grand coincidence of a bunch of stuff that happened. It sounds super obvious because it's become the modern lense that we view history through.

Attached: download-1-44.jpg (960x540, 34K)

You only criticize when you have reached a certain level. Before it's just subjective opinions based on pretty much nothing.