pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 30 Oct \ on: A comment on Stephen Livera's Bitcoin Won't Let You Transcend Politics Politics_And_Law
"Bitcoin isn’t an escape from politics but a tool for reshaping it. Every transaction is an assertion of self-sovereignty, every mined block a testament to decentralization’s resilience...Because Bitcoin is itself just politics by another means."
These two things seem unaligned; don't think I buy it. All you're doing then is to expand the definition of politics into meaning EVERY aspect of human coexistence. What the sentiment says in sentiments like opting out of politics or operating outside the system yada-yada is to not take part in the corrupt clown show that is high-stakes politics today. But to opt out, to create an alternative, to spend one's time and effort and attention not on what the news channels feed you but to consume V4V, understand bitcoin, and hold your sats far away from control by these parasites.
When systems are sufficiently corrupt, you don't "reform" them from within; you build alternatives that can supplant them. Fair enough, you can call that being politics renewed -- and that's right -- but then we're just redefining terms. OPTING OUT in my mind is synonymous with things like "ignoring politics" or "building outside the system" etc
If one describes politics to mean the system we're operating within now, then yes, I think that you're correct.
Of course I agree that the current system is a corrupt, clown show, parasitic disaster.
My argument is that politics describes all systems of human organization. The problem I see is when people say "I'm outside politics" but mean "I'm outside the current system" or "I'm outside those politics", they then (consciously or not) cede their political power back to the current system. The current system is an instantiation of politics, acting through debased and corrupted elements of human nature.
I see Bitcoin as a way to reverse the debasement and corruption of human nature, to realign politics more closely with positive elements and away from corrupted elements.
So yes, maybe I'm being a bit pedantic. And transcendent language does have a place at the beginning of a movement to inspire and motivate. But after a point, when the movement is no longer a fringe revolutionary movement and is more of a "real player", then the separationist rhetoric becomes a problem, potentially enervating the most vigorous fighters at just the time they're needed.
I believe that it's now time for that rhetorical shift - we're not outside politics, we're building a new politics outside those politics.
reply