Three critiques of #hacktivism : #wikileaks, #bitcoin, #copyleft
dommage, l’article sur #wikileaks semble méconnaître les motivations originellement exprimées par Assange (sur l’asymétrie dans la circulation de l’information), pour ne retenir que le discours compassé (et de façade) sur le rôle du journalisme dans la démocratie…
sur #bitcoin par contre c’est très intéressant :
[Alice and Bob] produce their products not to fulfil their own or somebody else’s need, but to sell their products such that they can buy what they need. When alice buys shoes off Bob, she uses her money as a leverage to make Bob give her his shoes; in other words, she uses his dependency on money to get his shoes. Vice versa, Bob uses alice’s dependence on shoes to make her give him money.12 Hence, it only makes sense for each to want more of the other’s for less of their own, which means deprive the other of her means: what I do not need immediately is still good for future trades. (...) the logic of exchange is that one wants to keep as much of one’s own means as possible: buy cheep, sell dear. In other words, they are not expressing this harmonious division of labour for the mutual benefit at all, but seeking to gain an advantage in exchange, because they have to. (...) This relation they have with each other produces an incentive to cheat, rob, steal. (...) This systemic production of circumstances where one party’s advantage is the other party’s disadvantage also produces the need for a monopoly on violence of the state. (...) The libertarians behind Bitcoin might detest state intervention, but a market economy presupposes it. (...) The fact that ‘unbreakable’ digital signatures—or law enforced by the #police—are needed to secure such simple transactions as goods being transferred from the producer to the consumer implies a fundamental #enmity_of_interest of the involved parties. (...) Money is power one can carry in one’s pockets; it expresses how much control over land, people, machines, products I have. (...) Money is an expression of social conditions where private property separates means and need.
libertarian Bitcoin adherents and developers claim that by ‘printing money’ states—via their central banks—devalue currencies and hence deprive their subjects of their assets.25 They claim that the state’s (and sometimes the banks’) ability of creating money ‘out of thin air’ would violate the principles of free market because they are based on monopoly instead of competition. (...) They do not ask why modern currencies do not have a limit built in, how credit money came about, if and how it is adequate for the capitalist economy and why the gold standard was departed from in the first place. They are not interested in explaining why the world is set the way it is but instead to confront it with their ideal version.
(...) the value of modern #credit money is backed by its ability to bring about capitalist growth
[et en conclusion : ] Systematic enmity of interests, exclusion from social wealth, subjection of everything to capitalist growth—that is what an economy looks like where exchange, money and private property determine production and consumption. This also does not change if the substance of money is gold or Bitcoin. This society produces poverty not because there is credit money but because this society is based on exchange, money and economic growth. The libertarians might not mind this poverty, but those on the left who discovered Bitcoin as a new alternative to the status quo perhaps should.
#propriété_privée #idéologie #libertariens #monnaie
Sur le copyleft ça me semble moins indispensable
#communs #biens_publics #domaine_public
mais la critique n’est pas inintéressante :
squatted houses get evicted to stand empty again, pieces of woodland are fenced in by their owners who live elsewhere or supermarkets lock their bins to prevent people from dumpster diving. The question whether someone could make use of something is subordinate to ownership, not the other way around.