Beyond Left and Right: Why We Need to Depoliticize Bitcoin

While 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, while David Columbia denounces the ideological claims of the American right regarding Bitcoin, other voices are raised in support of the opposite view. For example, the philosopher Mark Alizart asserts that "Bitcoin is the tool that could allow Marxism to be realized," in his evocatively titled book "Cryptocommunism."

From these conflicting hypotheses, we can deduce that Bitcoin transcends traditional political divides, unless we admit, without risking dissonance, that it is simultaneously the weapon of the most conservative right wing and that of the most revolutionary left wing. If we push this logic further, the fact that Bitcoin is the dual weapon used by extremist 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 Nonna Mayer summarizes , "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.

It is worth remembering 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 headless.

Links to cryptoanarchism

In the " Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto ", Timothy May published in 1988 the basic principles of what underpins 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" was a movement that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis, resulting in various bank failures and the implementation of bailouts by central banks. There is a subtle correlation between the 2008 crisis and the creation of Bitcoin. It's worth noting that the text written in the Bitcoin genesis block contains the headline from The Times newspaper dated January 3, 2009: " Chancellor on the verge of launching second bank bailout . "

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 created without state intervention, then we can see in it the foundations of libertarian ideology. The reduction, or even elimination, of state intervention, particularly in monetary creation, is indeed the cornerstone of libertarian thought. Among its leading figures, we can see in the theories of the Austrian School of Economics, and especially those developed by Friedrich Hayek, visions that today corroborate the creation of Bitcoin as a currency. (However, we should avoid attributing thoughts to the dead that were 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 seems to be a view shared by Satoshi Nakamoto, who, in his writings (see *Satoshi's Book*, Phil Champagne ), points out the similarity between gold and Bitcoin. Both assets should be considered commodities with a limited supply, and their production is difficult and costly.

It is also significant that the reference work for Bitcoiners is "The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banks" by Saifedean Ammous . The author explains that Bitcoin, by having great similarities to gold, acts as a "hard" currency, in contrast to the inflationary currencies that central bank fiat currencies have represented since the end of Bretton Woods.

Libertarianism as a common base and opening up of disparities

While libertarian ideology may offer a political framework for understanding Bitcoin, it's undeniable that it obscures its true meaning. Libertarianism is certainly more of a "political philosophy" than a political economy in the strict sense . It refers to a common ground for a heterodox set of political ideas. While some left-wing parties embrace libertarianism for its civil liberties, right-wing parties align themselves with it based on the principles of free economic exchange.

Let's be clear, 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 Nolan's diagram, we can see the common ground of the extremes: populism.

Thus, in his work "Liberalism," the philosopher and economist Pascal Salin asserts that "liberals are not on the right, they are 'elsewhere,' and one cannot apply labels—right or left—to them, labels 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 his essay " The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism ," David Columbia explains that far-right theories, particularly those shared by American alt-right activists, find in Bitcoin a weapon to serve their ideologies. For Columbia, Bitcoin is more of an ideology than a currency, and in this sense, it serves to justify the most authoritarian (even fascist) forms of government. According to Columbia, far-right ideology relies on Bitcoin to legitimize hatred of the state and its institutions, and ultimately, of democracy itself.

However, David Columbia's views are subject to controversy, as William Luther, professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, points out, writing that "Columbia's claim that Bitcoin is far-right software doesn't hold water. It stems from a superficial understanding of the history of ideas and modern economics."

More recently, in a similar vein, journalist Nastasia Hadjij, in her book "No Crypto," follows the same analytical framework, highlighting the quasi-religious fanaticism of certain individuals within the cryptosphere. This sphere, she argues, is fueled by an anti-democratic ideology that serves as a "matrix for the far 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, while Hadjij and Columbia highlight Bitcoin's connections with right-wing ideologies, it is crucial to emphasize here that authors like Mark Alizart see it more as a foundation that could accommodate 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 enable (on several levels) financial inclusion and the creation of a more democratic global financial system. In this regard, the work of Alex Gladstein, who argues that Bitcoin can contribute to the development of unbanked countries, is particularly relevant.

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 stem from its "decentralization," which alone has given rise to a whole series of political interpretations. According to the Bitcoin white paper and the writings of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin's decentralization is a mathematical and computer science feature. Bitcoin's decentralization was not so much conceived, in a political sense, to bypass states, but rather, in a computer science sense, to bypass a trusted third party. Moreover, Satoshi Nakamoto believes he has solved the " Byzantine Generals' Problem" with Bitcoin , a problem specific to the disciplines of computer science and mathematics.

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