Ines AissaniWhile some see cryptocurrencies as a revolutionary means of payment and an alternative to traditional financial systems, others see them as political tools serving extreme ideologies.
This political reading is double-edged, because it leads us into complex debates on the diverse – and sometimes polar opposite – ideologies that claim to be related to Bitcoin. According to analysts' views, Bitcoin is, in turn, a weapon for dissidents of the radical far right and at the same time an anarcho-capitalist manifesto advocated by activists of the far left.
Indeed, when David Columbia denounces the ideological demands of Bitcoin by the American right, other voices ring out to support the opposite. Thus, the philosopher Mark Alizart asserts that “Bitcoin is the tool that could allow Marxism to come true”, in his book with the evocative name “Cryptocommunism”.
From these sets of contradictory hypotheses, we can deduce that Bitcoin transcends traditional political divisions unless we admit, without risking dissonance, that it is both the weapon of the rightists of the most conservative branch and that of of the most revolutionary left. If we push the logic, that Bitcoin is the dual weapon used by extreme political currents should not surprise us too much if we consider the "horseshoe" theory " developed by the philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye. As the political scientist summarizes Nonna Mayer, “the political field would rather resemble a Horseshoe where the two ends almost touch.
From here, we can hypothesize that Bitcoin appeals to all political sensibilities and would almost allow consensus between the extremes. From this perspective, any political over-interpretation of Bitcoin (in one direction or the other) is then invalidated or invalidated.
Even more, despite the irresistible desire that seems to push certain authors to label Bitcoin with this or that political party, we take the risk of losing the meaning of our object.
The question that seems most relevant to us is not to know which political party Bitcoin would serve the cause of, but rather to ask to what extent it is an object that escapes a political and polarizing interpretation. Would it not be more relevant to consider – far from political interpretations – Bitcoin for what it is: a neutral computer protocol which allows payments to be made without a trusted third party?
Would it not be more judicious to think about its issues, its limits and its potential integration into the current economic world?
This is what we will try to answer here, by exploring the different facets of the ambiguous relationship between Bitcoin and politics. We will demonstrate the impasses of a political vision placed on Bitcoin and insist on the fact that this obscures the real issue of Bitcoin, namely, the proposal of an alternative currency, which in our opinion deserves the subject of real debate.
The origins of Bitcoin: The CypherPunks movement
If we seek to find an ideology behind the creation of Bitcoin, it appears first that we must turn to the informal movement called “ CypherPunk ».
The first time the Bitcoin white paper was submitted, in 2008, was to a Cryptography Mailing List that included members claimed to be CypherPunks. Thus, by being a member of this list, the founder of Bitcoin — Satoshi Nakamoto — likely shared the same aspirations. The main idea of the CypherPunk movement is to use technological solutions — including cryptography — as bulwarks to guarantee the freedom and privacy of individuals in an increasingly cybernetic society.
The primary quest of CypherPunks therefore remains the protection of individual freedom in the digital age. Bitcoin as a “peer-to-peer” payment infrastructure then corresponds perfectly to this quest insofar as it is a currency that can be exchanged freely, without the need for a trusted third party.
The fundamentally “decentralized” nature of Bitcoin, which does not need a central entity to function, is then the first step towards a political interpretation of the computer protocol. Inexorably, its autonomous operation echoes a so-called cryptoanarchist ideology.
Let us remember that the very etymology of the word “anarchism” means that which is “deprived of power or command”. This explains why the authors Jacques Favier and Adli Takkal preferred the adjective acephalous to define Bitcoin, that is to say, that which is deprived of a head.
Links to cryptoanarchism
In the " Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto » Timothy May published in 1988 the basic principles of what is the basis of cryptoanarchy through which cryptographic communication tools must maintain complete anonymity and total freedom of expression for individuals.
It is in this desire to preserve people's privacy that the ideological cradle of CypherPunks is rooted. From this perspective, Bitcoin is indeed an ideal product of cryptoanarchism insofar as it allows transactions to be carried out, sovereignly and anonymously.
Thus, when Wikileaks was no longer able to receive funding due to the ban on the use of financial operators such as PayPal and VISA, the community of bitcoiners showed solidarity by supporting the organization with donations in Bitcoin. In a beautiful game of mirrors, Wikileaks' freedom of expression and information was defended with a censorship-resistant tool, which was then able to circumvent government prohibitions.
Wikileaks is certainly an eminently political fight, but the use of Bitcoin here is a means, not an end. Intellectual rigor requires us not to confuse the tool and the ideology.
This is a somewhat different observation that must be made with the demand for Bitcoin by certain members of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in 2011, with the peaceful demonstrations denouncing the abuses of financial capitalism.
Bitcoin, as an alternative and decentralized monetary system, was seen, during these protests, as a way to challenge this power and offer a more democratic and transparent alternative.
“Occupy Wall Street” is a movement that occurred after the 2008 financial crisis, resulting in various bank failures and the implementation of “bailout plans” from central banks. There is a subtle correlation between the 2008 crisis and the creation of Bitcoin. Remember that the text written in the Bitcoin genesis block contains the title of the newspaper The Time dating from January 3, 2009 “The chancellor is about to launch a second bailout plan for the banks".
We can see that Satoshi Nakamoto's vision was not indifferent to the monetary policies of central banks. This even marks the historical and computational beginning of the Bitcoin Core software.
Bitcoin and Libertarian Ideology
If we consider bitcoin as a currency that is created without state intervention, then we can see the “foundations” of libertarian ideology. The reduction, or even the elimination of State intervention, particularly in terms of monetary creation, is in fact the basis of libertarian thought. Among the leading figures, we can see in the theories of the Austrian school of economics, and in particular those developed by Friedrich Hayek, visions which today corroborate the creation of Bitcoin as currency. (We will, however, avoid making the dead speak by attributing to them thoughts that are not their own).
In the work “For a real competition of currencies”, published in 1976, the author defends monetary free will and refuses the monopoly of monetary creation by the central bank.
This is, it seems, a point of view that Satoshi Nakamoto seems to share, who recalls in his writings (cf The Book of Satoshi, Phil Champagne) the similarity of gold and Bitcoin. Both assets should be considered as goods whose supply is limited, difficult and expensive to produce.
It is not trivial either if the reference work of bitcoiners is “The bitcoin standard: the decentralized alternative to central banks” by Saifedean Ammous. The author explains that Bitcoin, by having great similarities with gold, acts as a “hard” currency, as opposed to the inflationary currencies that constitute the fiat currencies of central banks, since the end of Bretton Woods.
Libertarianism as a common base and opening up of disparities
If we can find in libertarian ideology a perspective of political analysis to understand Bitcoin, we must face the evidence that this confuses our understanding. Certainly, libertarianism is more a “political philosophy” than a political economy strico sensu. Libertarianism refers to a common base for a heterodox set of political ideas. While some left-wing parties claim libertarianism for civil liberties, the right-wing parties will adhere to it by virtue of the principles of free economic trade.
Let it be said, there is not just one liberalism, but a multitude of liberalisms and according to the "political spectra", and the different models like the one depicted in the Nolan diagram, we can see the common base of the extremes: populism.
Thus, in his work "Liberalism", the philosopher and economist Pascal Salin, affirms that "Liberals are not on the right, they are 'elsewhere' and we cannot apply labels to them - right or left - which only constructivists can be saddled with.«
To the extent that each political movement can claim to be “libertarian”, it is without great surprise that we find libertarians on the left and right who claim to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin.
Let's see how each of the extremes can find an echo of their ideologies in Bitcoin.
How does Bitcoin appeal to the far right?
In the test " The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism », David Columbia explains that the theories of the extreme right, and particularly those shared by activists of the American alt-right, find in Bitcoin a weapon to serve their ideologies. For the author, Bitcoin is more of an ideology than a currency and in this sense it makes it possible to justify the most authoritarian (even fascistic) forms of government. For David Columbia, the ideology of the far right relies on Bitcoin to legitimize hatred of the State and its institutions, and ifine of democracy.
However, David Columbia's views are controversial as stated William Luther, professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, who writes that “Columbia's claim that Bitcoin is far-right software does not hold water. It arises from a superficial understanding of the history of ideas and modern economics. »
More recently, in a similar approach, the journalist Nastasia Hadjij in her book “No crypto” follows the same analysis grid by pointing out the quasi-religious fanaticism of certain people who make up the cryptosphere. This would be fueled by an anti-democratic ideology which would serve as a “matrix for the extreme right”.
The author also describes the ideals of certain supporters of cryptocurrencies, who reproduce the borderline behaviors of traditional finance from which they naively think they can distinguish themselves…
Beyond the factual disagreements that one may have with these visions, the fact remains that these works have a certain interest in that they can serve as safeguards. Furthermore, these works show us to what extent certain small groups “instrumentalize” Bitcoin to support their ideological excesses.
Also, we can criticize the authors for an all-encompassing and homogeneous vision of a profoundly heterogeneous group. Even within the crypto community, we find opposing “factions” such as those of the Bitcoin maximalists, who consider that Bitcoin is the only valid and valid cryptocurrency, refusing any status similar to other cryptocurrencies.
From this perspective, it is ironic that many Bitcoin maximalists share Nastasia Hadjij's opinion regarding certain deleterious aspects of decentralized finance.
Finally, if Hadjij and Columbia highlight the connections between Bitcoin and right-wing ideologies, it is crucial here to emphasize that authors like Mark Alizart rather see it as a foundation which would welcome far-left ideas…
What are the challenges of Bitcoin for the far left?
In his book "Cryptocommunism", Mark Alizart develops an original thesis according to which bitcoin could be considered "communist" in its nature. His ideas are certainly controversial, but they remain interesting in several respects. He bases his argument on the collective and common ownership of Bitcoin, which then denies the concept of private property found in capitalist societies. Moreover, he explains that bitcoin could redistribute economic power to emerging countries in a more equitable manner and thus reduce economic inequalities.
To understand this point of view, it is necessary to mention the dichotomy observed between holders of cryptocurrencies depending on the degree of banking in the countries. The use of cryptocurrencies is different depending on whether you reside in a developed country or in an emerging country. While in countries with a developed financial system, residents tend to speculate on the value of their assets, residents of countries in the “globalized south,” for example, use Bitcoin as a tool of emancipation.
While some speak of “cryptocolonialism,” it is clear that Bitcoin brings concrete benefits to unbanked populations around the world. Bitcoin can facilitate access to basic financial services, such as money transfers, loans or savings.
Cryptocurrencies also make it possible (on several scales) to achieve financial inclusion and the creation of a more democratic global financial system. On this point, we will not fail to cite the work of'Alex Gladstein which maintains that Bitcoin can participate in the development of unbanked countries.
This is for example the case of El Salvador, which opted for financialization through Bitcoin rather than requesting aid from the IMF.
It is no coincidence that the countries which have legalized Bitcoin are among the poorest and most excluded countries on the international economic scene, like the Salvador and Central African Republic (Mavilia, R., & Pisani, R. (2020).
The limits of the political vision of Bitcoin
Bitcoin has attracted the attention of people from different political backgrounds. Each political party can find in Bitcoin a tool to support and justify its philosophy. It seems to us that this is possible precisely because Bitcoin is not a political object.
This “politicization” of Bitcoin seems to arise from the characteristic of “decentralization” which alone has led to a whole series of political interpretations. Bitcoin decentralization is — according to the Bitcoin white paper and the writings of Satoshi Nakamoto — a mathematical and computational feature. The decentralization of Bitcoin was not so much designed, in a political dimension, to do without States, but in an IT dimension to do without a trusted third party. Moreover, Satoshi Nakamoto believes that with Bitcoin he has solved the “Problem of the Byzantine generals”, which is a problem specific to the computer science and mathematics discipline.
In an eminently scientific reading of his intentions, Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to create an electronic payment system that excludes the possible errors and flaws that are the responsibility of centralized systems. From this, we can assume that if some readings consider Satoshi Nakamoto as a politician or an economist, this is an overinterpretation which has no reason to be.
Even more, we believe that it is an epistemological error to consider Bitcoin as a political object to the extent that the object of study goes beyond the framework of the science that seeks to analyze it.
Final reflections
We hope to have demonstrated, at least in outline, that Bitcoin escapes the political considerations that we seek to impose on it. It would have been possible to do without demonstration with the simple contradictory statement that we find among the supporters of Bitcoin, ideologies of both extremes. Unable to be satisfied with such a discrepancy, we could conclude with the idea that by transcending political divisions, Bitcoin has the characteristics of a universal, if not universalist, currency.
Once again, among Bitcoin holders, you may find a Trumpist from the alt-right conspiracy theorist sitting at the table of a young progressive Nigerian who is looking for a way to insert himself into the game of the international economy.
To the great displeasure of some theorists, it seems much more honest to us to admit that Bitcoin is a "political UFO" if we persist in wanting to analyze it under the grid of political ideologies.
Bitcoin, as a computer protocol, cannot be correctly understood by personal projections or by a political analytical grid, in the same way that it would be just as incongruous to do so with the Internet protocol or with Artificial Intelligence.
Bitcoin aims to offer a solution to global economic problems such as inflation, currency devaluation and lack of access to financial services. These are problems, of course, which are at the crossroads of different disciplines including economics, politics and computer science, but which deserve (which is our responsibility?) analytical work which goes beyond purely political considerations.
source:
- Pascal Salin, Liberalism, 2000, Odile Jacob
- David Columbia, The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism, 2016, Univ Of Minnesota Press
- Hayek, For true currency competition, 2015, PUF
- Nastasia Hadjadji, No Crypto: How Bitcoin bewitched the planet, 2023, Divergences
- Mark Alizart, Cryptocommunism, 2019, Puff
- Timothy.C, The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, 1998, Translation URL: https://bitcoin.fr/the-crypto-anarchist-manifesto/
- Nonna Mayer, Do the extremes come together?, Podcast, April 25, 2023, FranceCulture.
- Jacques Favier, On David Golumbia's Software, May 28, 20223, The path to Bitcoin
- Mavilia, R., & Pisani, R, Blockchain and catching-up in developing countries: The case of financial inclusion in Africa City of Kyiv, Ukraine, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Development
- Alex Gladstein, Hidden Repression: How the IMF and World Bank Sell Exploitation as Development, 2023, Bitcoin Magazine Books
- Koenig, A. A beginner's guide to Bitcoin and Austrian economics, 2015, FinanzBuch
[…] Beyond Left and Right: Why We Need to Depoliticize Bitcoin […]