Topic: Is Bitcoin socialist dream come true ? - page 2. (Read 961 times)

Don't speak for me, I will do that myself thanks. Why don't you try answering my question instead of telling me what I mean and what I should think instead.

So far your attempt at a response, if I can call it that, is to say oh yeah Communism is stateless, but we need the state to get there. EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how funds are collected for the common good without the state and without the use of force.

I think what you mean to say is that we cannot transition to communism without government and that would be true.  Communism itself cannot exist with a state Any system with a state is not a communist system.  Socialism is the transition towards communism and that transition period sees the government get smaller and smaller until it is no longer needed.  Once resources are in the hands of communities, the means of production i in the hand of workers, and everything is completely democratic, there is no longer a need for government. 

Communism is idealistic and you are having trouble grasping it with a mindset that is operating within the context of the current system.

Communism/Socialism/Marxism CAN NOT exist without the state. If people were contributing to the community voluntarily it would be called charity. For Communism/Socialism/Marxism to work, resources have to be taken BY FORCE, and this of course requires the state. Now certainly roving gangs of people could also do this, but then that would be the state, because they are in charge.

Disagree? Explain to me then how resources are collected politely by force under your stateless Communism.

That is all positive, I think why not?

Anarchism isn't always chaos but a cumulation of choices made in liberty from the individuals. It's true it can result in chaos sometimes, but anarchism will bring up a solution if chaos result in a matter of an issue 

You continue to contribute things with socialism that have nothing to do with socialism.  All that "bread lines" statement does is show your lack of understanding for what socialism is. Its almost as if you haven't read Marx and have gotten all of your information from capitalist outlets.   Maybe you should listen to what socialists are actually advocating.

I have never come across a socialist who thinks the government should control everything yet every bootlicker defines socialism as government ownership.  Its almost as if someone has a vested interest in people being misinformed. 

This post of yours is illustrative of the very essence of wrong.

Every new fantasy or invention in capitalism is tested out in the market.

Socialism is the result of a micromanaged, stifled, poverty of intellect and creativity. Hence in socialism nothing matters what you fantasize or imagine, you are in a bread line waiting for scraps from the table of your betters.

Any idea or new invention comes from a fantasy.  Without imagination, the world just stays the same and nothing ever gets better.  Socialism is a result of imagining a system that improves upon the cruelty of capitalism.   Capitalism was once an improvement.

If you think things that haven't been done yet are a waste of time then you aren't just against socialism, you're against innovation in general. 

I covered this matter in my initial post as follows ....

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.

State socialism isn't socialism.  All of those places have simply replaced capitalists with government officials.  Its not worker ownership.  Socialism is government ownership and capitalists want you to think it means an authoritarian government controlling everything but its not.  No socialist advocates for the systems you would find in the countries listed.  Also, Russia is a capitalist oligarchy so I'm guessing you meant the former USSR instead of Russia.

A society with economic democracy would be much more free than what we have.  Imagine how many cool inventions we would have if we empowered more than 5% of the population with opportunity.

The problem is that you are thinking in one dimension politically and equating everything on the left.  The countries you mentioned are on the left but they are all authoritarian and can never be communist (stateless).

When I say "state socialism" its important to recognize the examples you mentioned are all in the top left (red) quadrant.

Classical marxism and socialism as defined in the dictionary and by any real socialist party today fall into the green quadrant (bottom left) and we believe in small government, local authority with workers having control over their own lives.  A transition towards actual communism cannot happen unless you are moving down on the spectrum.  That means less and less state authority until the state eventually disappears.  The countries you mentioned are literally the opposite of communism in that sense.    

Draw a line from neoconservatism to anarcho communism and that represents the true socilaist transition.

Key Points
1. Just because a party is named "communist" doesn't mean that their governance is consistent with their name.  

2. There are two political dimensions and not everything on the left can be conflated.  Just like fascists and libertarians cannot be conflated, communists and "maoists, leninists or whatever poor example you want to cite" cannot be conflated with us.

Okay, just to be clear. I do agree that the shared work in building the Bitcoin software is very close to what you refer to as "communist ideal".

The actual outcome may be quite different, but there are similarities.

Now let's go to the "socialist now, communist sometime in the future..."

This is where I think it's exactly right to say something like...

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

Further, where do things like Bitcoin arise? Not in Russia. Not in Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or China.

They arise in relatively free societies. What does that tell you?

I couldn't agree more and I share the same view, people new to wake up.

Well that is why I currently advocate for socialism instead of communism.  I'm a realist.  Yes the end goal should be to someday reach a utopian goal, but socialism is the realistic alternative that allows for a slow transition towards communism.  I'm not even saying its possible today.  I think  sometime in the far future when everyone alive has only lived in a completely socialist society for their entire lives would communism even become feasible.  At that point, the state and money would no longer have a purpose.  

This is a difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around so I like to point to a real life example of post-scarcity.  Think about a public transportation system.  Most require, drivers, ticket people, and police to catch fare-theft.  Well, today, there are automated public transit systems that run for free.  In that system, there is no longer a need for money to ride the train, workers to collect that money, or a state to catch people stealing a ride.  There are plenty of trains for everyones needs so there is no scarcity involved.  If you can wrap your head around this, communism is simply a society where everything is like this.

If you believe in technology and innovation, you should believe there is a point in the future where essential work is obsolete, all managed by ai/automation, and that scarcity has been eliminated for basic goods.  Under capitalism, this moment represents certain death for most of humanity.  Under communism, it represents the feasibility of a utopian society where people are free to pursue their passion.

I'm obsessed with microtransactions and smart contracts because they represent a mental leap for people realizing money isn't real or necessary.  We used to have gold that people held dearly, the next logical leap was to cash which represented gold or some sort of value.  Now we have digital money which still can be exchanged for cash, and I think the next step is pure crypto.  Before long, transactions will all be running in the background like the code for the programs on your computer and people will live life without thinking about money.  Crypto represents a huge leap towards a society without money even if we are still 5 or 6 more leaps (very far) away from not having it all.

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.

This would've been clever if statelessness wasn't key characteristic of communism, which soclialism is a stride towards.  Poor logic to suggest a system of state ownership would transition to statelessness.

Or you could just look at the definition of socialism "Workers own the means of production".

Capitalism would be where I am mining through software owned by a capitalist and a huge developer fee goes to them.  I guess nicehash would be a lite example.  Socialism would mean allowing all miners a chance to set the developer fee to zero.

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

Hahaha... I am reading the 1984 book right now

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

No its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

The main problem with socialism is the centralization, and I my opinion socialism can work on a decentralized system like (blockchain). Now the question is how?

Ok look at miners, let put in perspective and say they work like the gold miners, but still they are a lot different. Gold miners are mining gold a natural resource, where bitcoin miners are just there for security, that is why they get the rewards for every transaction and new btc. For mining Gold, you need human resources, machinery, transport, storage, on another side for bitcoin you need computers and electricity, no transport, and no storage ( 185 gigabytes for September 2018, this is still nothing).

Gold is used mainly for jewelry! The gold standard was once used by many nations, but it eventually became too cumbersome and is no longer used by any nation. Now gold is used for investment, people on the stock market guessing when the price goes up and down, that is it (same as Bitcoin ). Gold is used in manufacturing but not in huge masses.

Ok, now when people say


It is all the perspective how you look at it, what if a small city around (40.000) people, make they own mining farm, everybody invest and everybody gets the returns from the mining firm through their app, now you look at miners like a perspective of a socialist, the more trades happening, the more rewards are giving out. And you have some basic universal income, now it isn't much (it can be in 10 years) but with bitcoin, let not forget, you can access the global market (trading for other coins, tokens). There are cloud mining options but those are trying to make a profit from you, option above is less risky and when executed right can be better than the cloud mining options. Now everyone gets a cut of the global trade. You killed the need for banks, savings billions of dollars, and let us be honest, banks are doing nothing productive for the society. This is way ICO is great, you can access the global economy with few clicks, if you need a credit to start a business, buy a house, etc. Crowdfunding is the future (and crowdfunding in the core of socialism and a little bit of capitalism). Capitalism is not bad, but capitalism and globalism is a recipe for disaster. You can see it by looking at income inequality, lobbying, climate change, wars.

In the end, it is how you see the world, nothing more or less.