Don't fall for the positive pandering at the beginning of the text. That is
there only to make it seem like an honest and impartial analysis. But it is
not, as the manipulation of distribution figures, lack of dates and
references, and use of heavily biased terminology show.

This is just more Krugman from someone who is unable to understand Bitcoin
and unwilling to think beyond the rigid framework imposed by Marxist
terminology. As someone relatively close to Bauwens and the P2P foundation,
I have tried for years to make him see how it is the Dollar-USArmy dynamics
that perpetuates Empire, or how politically controlled currency by
definition fosters an elite class that dominates society. But such notions
are way too close to actual reality to make a dent in a mind that is
already shaped by a quite rigid abstract universal model and by the
vocabulary in which it is rooted. Trying to reason Bitcoin with Bauwens has
been a very frustrating experience, since we always come back to some
liberal catchword that is meaningless in the context of the blockchain.

After working with/for P2P Foundation for some time, I've grown
disillutioned by the direction it has, because the underlying project is
not really P2P. For instance a term that is being pumped is "The Partner
State", which I think speaks for itself. The Partner State is the
contradiction of the very notion of P2P. In addition to the Partner State,
P2PF discourse has steered towards proposing a society based on the
conformation of a series of institutions that are aligned with their
ideology. This, again, is far from being a real P2P project. I have
expressed repeatedly that for real P2P we must go beyond platforms, and
think in terms of protocols. As you can see in FairCoin, the important part
is not really the Coin, but the control institutions attached to it. It's
more of the same.

I think it's a combination of ideological rigidity (even if disguised as a
P2P guy, a liberal will always be a liberal), the inability to think
differently due to decades of ideological conditioning, and sheer lack of
imagination.

For the record, I too think Bitcoin is massively flawed, and at the same
time I've been holding some since 2011 for obvious reasons. The point I
want to make is not that Bitcoin is perfect, but that the Bauwen's critique
is irelevant because it originates exclusively from the fact that Bitcoin
differs from his liberal ideology, and it does not further explore the
complexities, paradoxes and strangeness of Bitcoin in the real world.

There are other critiques that do, and I find those much more important,
but that is another story.



On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Joerg Platzer <joerg@???> wrote:

>
> This may be a good moment ​to quote the definition of fascism as defined
> by its inventor, Benito Mussolini:
>
>
> "Fascism as the merging of politacal and corporate power."
>
>
> And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, take a look around you and tell me what
> kind of system we live in!
>
>
> ++jp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* unSYSTEM <unsystem-bounces@???> im Auftrag von Tim
> Patrick <judoman589@???>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 21:12
> *An:* System undo crew
> *Betreff:* Re: [unSYSTEM] A political evaluation of Bitcoin by M. Bauwens
>
> So this lad thinks bitcoin will bring about the negative consequence of
> fascism....
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Enric Duran Giralt <enric@???>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting read
>>
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/a-political-evaluation-of-bitcoin/2014/09/09
>>
>> regards
>> Enric
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>


--
Nicolas Mendoza

PhD Researcher
School of Creative Media
City University of Hong Kong
China PDR - HKSAR