• vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Unfortunately what you’re suggesting is crypto. Which as we’ve seen isn’t really compatible with any world where capitalism still exists; as capitalists will just monopolize it.

    • Kindness is Punk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      You’re conflating two separate things: currency infrastructure vs. the economic system it runs under.

      All the problems you’re describing are problems of capitalism, not problems of digital currency.

      The point is: right now, Visa and Mastercard are an unelected, profit-driven gatekeeper. Replacing them with a state-backed, insured, physically-backed digital currency isn’t “crypto” it’s just removing a parasitic middleman.

      Same money. Same banks. Same insurance. Just no corporate toll booth.

      Will capitalists try to capture it? Absolutely. So build it with guardrails. But “they might capture it later” isn’t an argument against building it better than what we have today. Otherwise you can’t support anything short of revolution.

      • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        What state? Because it cannot be any european state. It can’t be any state in the Americas. It can’t be most asian countries. It absolutely cannot be Australia.

        There is no state that is both already uncaptured by capital and palatable enough to avoid sanctions in the west. Since that’s the actual only reason sanctions exist, to punish those not currently fully captured by capital holders.

        So it cannot be state backed.

        Can it be insured without a state? Maybe, but then whoever insures it sets the rules for it. This is the problem with the Federal Reserve owning USD versus the US government. Can it be physically backed without a state? No.

        If this magically came into existence in a state and was even slightly effective, that state would magically be developing nuclear weapons the next day and invaded. Just a reminder Gaddafi was doing what you’re proposing… and global capital was so mad he was allegedly anally penetrated by machetes while the entirety of the country was effectively destroyed.

        Any solution that gains traction developed by a state would get that state eliminated.

        And any solution not made by a state will either be a scam, be monopolized by capital as its an asset and someone will be willing to sell it, or will simply not catch on since businesses would find no incentive to use it in large enough numbers to function. You’d need half of a country’s economy, at minimum, to switch to that new currency for people to effectively circulate it. Which is why bitcoin never took off as a currency. Which is why no crypto will ever really be used as a currency outside spot transactions. Your employees need to be able to pay their taxes with it. Which in any country means the government approves of it, which means its not a threat to them, which for 150 countries means it is not in any way a threat to capital and can be fully controlled by it.

        It’s a good solution for global socialism. And socialist countries wanting to make that transition away from the last vestiges of capitalism might find utility in a state-issued digital currency… as long as capitalism does not exist anywhere at any point at that time. Because it just takes one economy where you can buy this digital currency like any other commodity in exchange for USD or other currency that can buy goods; just one to ruin everything.