Post by twetch#21877
It's probably not helpful in the long run for crypto to be seen as an exclusively right wing thing. Wouldn't people who want wider adoption for these technologies want to double the audience of people potentially interested?
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 277
- Time
- 2020-05-17T07:12:33Z
- Signer
- 16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#21877
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
16SgJCRH7fB5ny6wCHabmiGaa6wcbve6WS VerifiedReplies (13)
The language here reflects the present I think. "to be seen" and "double audience". These are passive activities. Speculators etc-need such things. To be useful transcends ideology. No one cares what anyone else thinks about water. we drink not make show!
Different ideologies, different crypto.
I guess a central bank controlled crypto like the one visa is developing should be fine for those who follow the communist manifesto.
Or Ripple. Or BTC, for that matter.
Yeah, I mean left wing and right wing ecosystems sort of develop, and maybe one day they'll really be left and right social media platforms even more than now. But just to be clear, I think the assosciation of authoritarianism with leftism here is bizzare.
Personally, I'm perfectly moderate between anarchocommunism (eg wikipedia) and anarchocapatalism (bitcoin) and fuck all the worlds Dear Leaders. Plus we all have the same enemies.
Anarcho-communism...
Frankly, i don't think Marx was serious about communism. It was just the lure to get freedom-minded people into radical statism (socialism).
If marxism was a religion, its commandment would be to sin till sin withers away.
Bizarre? I wish I could agree.
I just can't see a way of abolishing private property without a state-like entity CONTROLLING it.
With one exception: the voluntary giving up of private property in a post-scarcity world.
Yeah, well private property doesn't really exist. It's just a network of contracts about who agrees who has the right to use what, and like anything else, the state messes it up by making the contracts non voluntary. Some examples make this very obvious:
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.