Hey Jaromil! Great to see you too, too bad I couldn't hang out longer,
no doubt we'll bump into each other again sooner, rather than later.
I fully understand that DYNDY and your research is not focused only on
BitCoin, however this thread, and the mute article it references is
specifically about BitCoin, as where my comments that BitCoin is nothing
more (or less) than digital specie. So I'll stick to BitCoin as a topic
here, although I do agree a much larger topic is related.
The two direct questions I asked, which I don't feel your response
really addressed in any direct way, was what reason do we have to
believe that BitCoin (or any specie new or old, digital or physical)
would affect the structure of wealth and income in society in such a way
as to bring about more fairness and equality?
I'm not looking for a macroeconomic "prediction" here, merely an
argument that has macroeconomic consistency. Meaning an economically
logical argument. In simple terms, how can a digital specie change the
structure of wealth or income? In the most basic macroeconomic terms:
total income is equal to profits plus wages, so for BitCoin to have a
macroeconomic effect, are you suggesting that it will lower profits or
raise wages? If so, how? Or perhaps are you suggesting that BitCoin will
redirect profits from private to social forms? And again, if so, how?
The other direct question was: in what way is BitCoin democratic? Your
response was directed at being "state-centered," yet, this was not the
point or implication of the question. The question was: in what way can
BitCoin (or any other specie) perform "democratic" economic functions,
such as the provisioning of public goods, leveling of accumulation and
moderation of price fluctuations. In other words, what are the
mechanisms for making collective social choices about economic outcomes?
You raise a point of wether accumulation of capital is a consequence of
capitalism or an obstacle to a freer society, yet, it is of course both,
so this is a false dilemma. Clearly the structure of wealth and income
today is a consequence of capitalism, just as clearly, it is an obstacle
to new economics modes as well. Not only because of the coercive
requirement that the majority of us work for, and thus continue to
enrich, capital, and not only because the accumulated wealth available
to capitalist interests is used to capture and direct social and public
institutions, compelling the to put the interests of the elite above the
interests of the masses, but also very directly in that, the current
division of income in society means that the amount of wealth that is
available for non-capitalist productive modes is simple too negligible
to bring about major changes as is.
Best,
--
Dmyri Kleiner
Venture Communist
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org