Re: <nettime> Mute article on Bitcoin

[Dmytri Kleiner <dk@telekommunisten.net>]

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: nettime@kein.org