Topic: Are Bitcoin Critics Marxist Geographers? (Read 911 times)
For one, Bitcoin is not violent, although I think a lot of its drive is from the same sentiment of not participating in a system that disenfranchises the user (like the classic financial system). I don't think his premise is correct as far as "redistribution". Bitcoin is supplanting the existing system rather than trying to reorganize it. The Bitcoin community built the value that they are now enjoying, they didn't take it from others by force (at least the majority of us didn't). The status quo must frame Bitcoin within this criminalized catagory in order to psychologically link it with crime and violence, because they know very well it is a more efficient system that will change world financial dynamics if allowed to grow. So to the real elite there is no difference between violent criminals, and people who have built a better system to replace the old corrupt one that only serves the elite. My impression is that this author is a capitalist mouthpiece in a sheep skin of Marxism (not that I support Marxism).
The question recently came up as to whether bitcoin supporters are "neoliberals." To support the idea that there is such a thing as "neoliberalism" someone cited the book "A Brief Histroy of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey. David Harvey is a Marxist geographer.
I've started reading the book and just came across an interesting quote I'd like to share. Harvey describes a "neoliberal coup" of New York City by "financial institutions" in the 1970s, after which "corporate welfare substituted for people welfare." As a consequence, Harvey says the following:
Redistribution through criminal violence became one of the few serious
options for the poor, and the authorities responded by criminalizing
whole communities of impoverished and marginalized populations. The
victims were blamed, and Giuliani was to claim fame by taking revenge
on behalf of an increasingly affluent Manhattan bourgeoisie tired of
having to confront the effects of such devastation on their own
doorsteps.
I'm particularly interested in the phrase "redistribution through criminal violence" and Harvey's description of the perpetrators of "criminal violence" as the "victims".
This does seem to be in stark contrast to what I read from bitcoin supporters. Bitcoin supporters are often against redistribution, against all forms of welfare (corporate or otherwise), and would not describe those who commit violence in order to take someone else's money as being "victims". In fact, an argument sometimes offered in favor of "dark" marketplaces on the internet is that it removes violence from the transaction. I think it's fair for me to conclude most bitcoin supporters do not agree with this particular Marxist geographer.
What about bitcoin critics? Do they agree with this Marxist geographer on this issue?
I've started reading the book and just came across an interesting quote I'd like to share. Harvey describes a "neoliberal coup" of New York City by "financial institutions" in the 1970s, after which "corporate welfare substituted for people welfare." As a consequence, Harvey says the following:
Redistribution through criminal violence became one of the few serious
options for the poor, and the authorities responded by criminalizing
whole communities of impoverished and marginalized populations. The
victims were blamed, and Giuliani was to claim fame by taking revenge
on behalf of an increasingly affluent Manhattan bourgeoisie tired of
having to confront the effects of such devastation on their own
doorsteps.
I'm particularly interested in the phrase "redistribution through criminal violence" and Harvey's description of the perpetrators of "criminal violence" as the "victims".
This does seem to be in stark contrast to what I read from bitcoin supporters. Bitcoin supporters are often against redistribution, against all forms of welfare (corporate or otherwise), and would not describe those who commit violence in order to take someone else's money as being "victims". In fact, an argument sometimes offered in favor of "dark" marketplaces on the internet is that it removes violence from the transaction. I think it's fair for me to conclude most bitcoin supporters do not agree with this particular Marxist geographer.
What about bitcoin critics? Do they agree with this Marxist geographer on this issue?
Jump to: