MIDWESTERN MARX INSTITUTE
  • Home
  • Online Articles
    • Articles >
      • All
      • News
      • Politics
      • Theory
      • Book Reviews
      • Chinese Philosophy Dialogues
    • American Socialism Travels
    • Youth League
  • Dr. Riggins' Book Series
    • Eurocommunism and the State
    • Debunking Russiagate
    • The Weather Makers
    • Essays on Bertrand Russell and Marxism
    • The Truth Behind Polls
    • Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century
    • Lenin's Materialism & Empirio-Criticism
    • Mao's Life
    • Lenin's State and Rev
    • Lenin's LWC Series
    • Anti-Dühring Series
  • Store
    • Books
    • Merchandise
  • YouTube
  • Journal of American Socialist Studies (JASS)
  • Contact
    • Article Submissions
    • The Marks of Capital
  • Online Library
  • Staff

9/6/2021

Cryptocurrency: Revolutionary or Reactionary? By: Francis Hayes

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
​In 2008, an anonymous paper was released through a cryptography mailing list entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.1 Under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, the unidentified author(s) fused together a myriad of known cryptography and consensus algorithms in novel fashion in order to create a decentralized electronic currency.

Since the inception of Bitcoin, there has been a steady climb of intrigue towards Bitcoin and blockchain, the name of the technology underlying bitcoin, from regulators, industry, and speculators. The key promise Bitcoin makes, and which makes it novel, is the notion of consensus.2 In other words, how do all parties using Bitcoin come to an agreement on the true state of things. In the context of paper banking, we have institutions that mediate and resolve these conflicts through banks and courts. But if we no longer have these centers of authority to look towards, how can we reach a conclusion as a collective?

The solution Bitcoin uses is a game-theoretic approach known as Proof of Work (PoW). In PoW, computers compete to be the first to solve an arbitrary computationally difficult problem. The first to solve this problem gets rewarded, and they become the ones to introduce the next block (a set of transaction data and metadata) onto the blockchain. The logic is that, since solving the problem expends a great deal of energy, and since there is no guaranteed reward for expending that energy (being the first to solve the problem is not necessarily deterministic, it is probabilistic in nature), then it deters malicious actors. Furthermore, if honest actors in the blockchain network disagree with the block that is added to the blockchain, they can ignore it, and the creator of that block will not be rewarded. Put simply, there are high costs and little incentive associated with putting false transaction data on the blockchain.

There are a handful of issues with this solution. Bitcoin has come under criticism due to the large amount of electricity it requires to sustain itself, even more electricity than some countries utilize.3 Larger companies have set up warehouses filled with specialized compute hardware in order to more effectively mine cryptocurrency, driving up the costs of Graphical Processing Units in particular (although many cryptocurrencies now require application-specific integrated processors in order to be profitable). The more compute hardware you have, the greater likelihood you have to be the one to create the next block and receive the next reward.

Ultimately, capital plays a major role in determining the “truth” of the blockchain. Those with more capital are able to buy more computing hardware, and thus they will have the greatest say in the state of the blockchain, and will also receive the greatest rewards. So in essence, there is little difference from a PoW blockchain and the current workings of capital. The main difference is that money itself becomes depoliticized. No longer are politicians and regulators determining the supply of money. It is now a deterministic, algorithmic approach presiding over the economy. This divide applies both domestically and abroad. The technical and infrastructural disparities between the global north and global south would be reflected in the distribution of cryptocurrency. The global north would use its capital to access greater computational resources and have more control over the global economy as their wealth increases.

Other solutions have been introduced to alleviate some of the issues of PoW, but they fall into similar traps. Proof of stake (PoS) is one popular approach. In PoS, tokens are “staked” to determine the next block on the blockchain. In other words, those maintaining the blockchain will bet their capital on the next block they think will be chosen, and the block that gets chosen is the one which more capital is bet on.4 So those with greater amounts of capital once again have a greater opportunity to control the notion of truth in financial transactions, simply by means of having more capital.

The Sublime Token of Cryptocurrency

In Zizek’s The Sublime Object of Ideology, he introduces the notion of the sublime object, with money as the leading example:

Here we have touched a problem unsolved by Marx, that of the material character of money: not of the empirical, material stuff money is made of, but of the sublime material, of that other ‘indestructible and immutable’ body which persists beyond the corruption of the body physical…5

We as subjects are able to recognize money as a sublime object. We also recognize the role that institutions play in the shaping of our economy. Thus, we still point to institutions when contradictions, failures, or catastrophes occur within the cracks of contemporary capitalism.

Instead of pointing to these institutions, or instead of pointing to natural substance such as gold, Bitcoin points to a digital void. What we are left with is an essentialist view of the market as a natural principle. In this sense, we further abstract the Marxian notion of (commodity) fetishism. Not only do we obscure social relations through the exchange of money for commodities, we now abstract the relation between our social relations and the conception of money in itself. Zizek identifies the “invisible” nature of digital currency prior to Bitcoin’s popularity:

When, in a decade or so, money will finally become a purely virtual point of reference, no longer materialized in a particular object, this dematerialization will render its fetishistic power absolute: its very invisibility will render it all-powerful and omnipresent.6

Here, Zizek’s analysis is correct, but still grounded in contemporary banking and financial systems. It could not predict and account for the disembodied nature of cryptocurrency, a notion even more powerful than simply the dematerialization of money — it can be seen, in a sense, as the dematerialization of institutions (banking, finance, contracts, etc.).​

Cynicism and Conspiracy

A key concept from a Zizekian point of view is the use of cynical distancing, for the scientific modern subject to act out their fantasies and appear post-ideological:

… the prevailing ideology is that of cynicism; people no longer believe in ideological truth; they do not take ideological propositions seriously. […] Cynical distance is just one way — one of many ways — to blind ourselves to the structuring power of ideological fantasy: even if we do not take things seriously, even if we keep an ironical distance, we are still doing them.7

The exchange of cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin, a mock cryptocurrency, are drenched in layers of satire. Even so, many speculators are getting involved in trading these tokens due to their high volatility and high reward potential. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are the worst offender of cynicism. In the crypto-sphere, NFTs are tokens provided as proof of ownership of some digital asset such as an image, and their authenticity is maintained by a blockchain. In 2021, NFT sales have topped over $2 billion dollars. Elon Musk has best exemplified this cynicism through a variety of self-aggrandizing acts, frequently promoting Dogecoin and NFTs.

Another silicon valley technocrat, Jack Dorsey, has been in the news for his support of Bitcoin and anarcho-capitalism. Recently, he has tweeted “#wtfhappenedin1971”9 — a reference to a website with anarcho-capitalist leanings that blames the issues of the US economy on Nixon’s decision to leave the gold standard. This seems to be fetishism at its most severe. Money, once it becomes fully digital and the “last traces of its materiality disappears,”10 it paradoxically becomes a virtually-material substance. A talk given at Bitcoin 2021 best summarizes this view:

“When you own bitcoin you own the thing, you have a claim to the thing. That is what cash was supposed to be to gold.”11

Is this not simply the search for greater meaning, and a failure to acknowledge the social role of money? To avoid identifying money as social, it becomes naturalized as a mystical thing, just as in commodity fetishism. The thing stands in as a representation of a hidden substance contained in an object, which Marx identified as human labor. Here it is clear that the libertarian view can not properly historicize the events following the Nixon shock, thus, there is a quick move to project this gap in their ideology to a positive object, in this case gold, to explain the crises of late-capitalism.

Liberating Potential

In Karl Marx and the Blockchain, Basu and Gabbay argue that Blockchain in its current state is a utopian pipe-dream, however, they recognize the potential of the technology to relieve some of the contradictions Marx pointed out:

There seems nowhere to turn, the system is wobbling, and the key component of trust in that system,     is ebbing away.

If so, then this is an arc which Marx predicted. The endpoint of his prediction was a social collapse          which may yet happen, and (so the fear) we may be trapped on this trajectory by an economic logic        which we struggle to escape.

[…] Next to this, cryptocurrencies promise a way out which is not obviously any more crazy than                anything else, and this is why Bitcoin has bounced back from one disaster after another and why            research and investment continue to flow to blockchain tech, trying to make it work.12

Their analysis is fairly reasonable as they identify the need of democratization in order for cryptocurrency to succeed, pointing out that “this democratization and diffusion is likely to change the tech beyond recognition.”13 While there is potential in the original ideas proposed by Nakamoto, it will require great effort, research, and collaboration to change the form into one that can be used in a truly egalitarian way.

I can’t help but think of Jodi Dean’s notion of communicative capitalism, the contemporary form of neoliberal capitalism in which the internet has combined individuality, liberal democracy, and capitalism into a body which suppresses collective action and desire, particularly with an emphasis on the commodification in communication systems.14 There are parallels that can be made here as well. The decentralization of the economy may simply be a parallel to that of our forms of communication, in which every individual can broadcast their ideas to the internet. Though Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are often represented as a game-changer, they are ultimately just a shift in form as capital transmutes and finds new ways to sustain itself.  As the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto points to a void, an empty signifier, a non-person — so too does Bitcoin point to a void, a depoliticized hierarchical currency, with no anchoring body. In order to truly break free from unnecessary hierarchy, we must continue to fight for radical egalitarianism, leveraging technological advances, while not being dependent on them as an easy solution.




Notes

1.     Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” 2008.
2.     For more information regarding the problem of consensus, see Leslie Lamport, Robert E. Shostak, and Marshall C. Pease, "The Byzantine Generals Problem." ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4, no. 3 (1982): 382-401.
3.     Cristina Criddle, “Bitcoin consumes ‘more electricity than Argentina.’” BBC. February 10, 2021. Accessed August 21, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/13/nft-sales-top-2-billion-in-first-quarter-with-interest-from-newcomers.html. Accessed August 21, 2021.
4.     Vitalik Buterin, and Virgil Griffith, “Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget.” 2017.
5.     Slavoj Zizek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (Verso Books, 2009), 9.
6.     Slavoj Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes (Verso Books, 2017), 35.
7.     Zizek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, 30.
8.     Robert Frank, “NFT sales top $2 billion in first quarter, with twice as many buyers as sellrs.” CNBC, April 13, 2021.
9.     Retrieved from https://twitter.com/jack/status/1426892980749848579?s=20. Accessed August 21, 2021.
10.  Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes, 302.
11.  This talk occurs at Bitcoin 2021, a conference promoted by Bitcoin Magazine. Video retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxX-90cz9aM. Accessed August 21, 2021.
12.  Devraj Basu, and Murdock Gabbay, “Karl Marx and the Blockchain.” 2020, 10-11. Available online at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.13346.pdf.
13.  Ibid.,16.
14.  See The Communist Horizon by Jodi Dean.

Author

Francis Hayes is an activist focusing on international relations, development, and technology. Francis has a Master's degree in Computer Science with a focus on social data mining.


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020

Share

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

Details

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020

    Categories

    All
    Aesthetics
    Afghanistan
    Althusser
    American Civil War
    American Socialism
    American Socialism Travels
    Anti Imperialism
    Anti-Imperialism
    Art
    August Willich
    Berlin Wall
    Bolivia
    Book Review
    Brazil
    Capitalism
    Censorship
    Chile
    China
    Chinese Philosophy Dialogue
    Christianity
    CIA
    Class
    Climate Change
    COINTELPRO
    Communism
    Confucius
    Cuba
    Debunking Russiagate
    Democracy
    Democrats
    DPRK
    Eco Socialism
    Ecuador
    Egypt
    Elections
    Engels
    Eurocommunism
    Feminism
    Frederick Douglass
    Germany
    Ghandi
    Global Capitalism
    Gramsci
    History
    Hunger
    Immigration
    Imperialism
    Incarceration
    Interview
    Joe Biden
    Labor
    Labour
    Lenin
    Liberalism
    Lincoln
    Linke
    Literature
    Lula Da Silva
    Malcolm X
    Mao
    Marx
    Marxism
    May Day
    Media
    Medicare For All
    Mencius
    Militarism
    MKULTRA
    Mozi
    National Affairs
    Nelson Mandela
    Neoliberalism
    New Left
    News
    Nina Turner
    Novel
    Palestine
    Pandemic
    Paris Commune
    Pentagon
    Peru Libre
    Phillip-bonosky
    Philosophy
    Political-economy
    Politics
    Pol Pot
    Proletarian
    Putin
    Race
    Religion
    Russia
    Settlercolonialism
    Slavery
    Slavoj-zizek
    Slavoj-zizek
    Social-democracy
    Socialism
    South-africa
    Soviet-union
    Summer-2020-protests
    Syria
    Theory
    The-weather-makers
    Trump
    Venezuela
    War-on-drugs
    Whatistobedone...now...likenow-now
    Wilfrid-sellers
    Worker-cooperatives
    Xunzi

All ORIGINAL Midwestern Marx content is under Creative Commons
(CC BY-ND 4.0) which means you can republish our work only if it is attributed properly (link the original publication to the republication) and not modified. 
Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos from U.S. Secretary of Defense, ben.kaden
  • Home
  • Online Articles
    • Articles >
      • All
      • News
      • Politics
      • Theory
      • Book Reviews
      • Chinese Philosophy Dialogues
    • American Socialism Travels
    • Youth League
  • Dr. Riggins' Book Series
    • Eurocommunism and the State
    • Debunking Russiagate
    • The Weather Makers
    • Essays on Bertrand Russell and Marxism
    • The Truth Behind Polls
    • Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century
    • Lenin's Materialism & Empirio-Criticism
    • Mao's Life
    • Lenin's State and Rev
    • Lenin's LWC Series
    • Anti-Dühring Series
  • Store
    • Books
    • Merchandise
  • YouTube
  • Journal of American Socialist Studies (JASS)
  • Contact
    • Article Submissions
    • The Marks of Capital
  • Online Library
  • Staff