I don't think anyone wants what you have unless you're a billionaire or something of the sort. Socialist thought is very clear about the problem, the problem is not private property per se, the problem is absurd accumulation, not private property. Being pro tax is also not a mainstream position of the original socialist thought. What you see nowadays is a copy of a copy of copy. None of these people ever read anything socialist. They're just repeating what other people have said.

Socialist and communist thought is very anarchist and state skeptic, especially in the beginning. That's the whole point of socialism. To distribute more opportunities for more people. It started by being very utopian, very industrious, civilized, etc.

Marx and Lenine basically occupied this kind of socialist thought with the ideas of violent revolution, especially after the Paris Commune revolution. We can very much argue that those people don't represent the socialist movement.

A lot of socialists are whats called libertarian market or voluntaryist socialist, and they simply want mutual credit or co-created money systems to create a better world, voluntarily. That was the origin of the socialist movement. It didn't start by talking about taxes, it started by offering utopian visions of the world and introducing new tools to create it. Very much like right wing libertarians do and believe so of Bitcoin for example.

Right wing libertarians think they're inventing freedom from opression when early socialists were all over that 150 years ago. The very own libertarian definition or expression was created in socialist thought.

There's a lot to be said about the socialist movement.

All low resolution positions.

The idea that socialism or communism represents a single, unified ideology is historically absurd.

The socialist movement is nearly two centuries old, extraordinarily diverse, pluralistic, and often deeply heterodox. Long before the Soviet Union existed, socialist thinkers were proposing radically different ways of organizing society.

Take **Robert Owen**, for example, a successful British entrepreneur and one of the pioneers of the modern cooperative movement. He believed society could be transformed through education, cooperation, better working conditions, and the **voluntary** creation of alternative communities.

Or **Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**, one of the founders of mutualism and anarchism, who opposed centralized state power and proposed systems of mutual credit, worker associations, and decentralized economic cooperation.

Then there were **Charles Fourier**, who imagined voluntary cooperative communities; **Mikhail Bakunin** and **Peter Kropotkin**, who advocated forms of libertarian socialism; and later democratic socialists who pursued economic democracy through parliamentary institutions.

These thinkers disagreed profoundly about property, markets, money, the state, and how social change should happen. Some socialists believed in revolution, others in gradual reform, and others in building alternative institutions from the ground up.

**The great historical misconception is reducing this enormous intellectual tradition to Marxism-Leninism and the authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century.**

Those regimes represent one particular historical trajectory, not the entirety of socialist thought. In fact, some of the strongest opponents of authoritarian socialism were socialists themselves.

**Socialism didn't begin with Marx, and it certainly didn't begin with Lenin.** The socialist tradition has always contained competing visions of emancipation, including approaches based on voluntary association, cooperative ownership, mutual aid, economic democracy, and decentralization.

We have AI now, you can actually learn things quickly. Otherwise aren't we just spewing propaganda?

Tom Greco tem um bom vídeo do verdadeiro futuro do dinheiro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmPaR3bB5NY

Eu percebo o ponto e repara, nesse sentido, eles querem distribuir as acções, tanto o Elon como o Bernie Sanders. A ideia é um UBI de acções, isto é a maneira de monetizar infinitamente o mercado de acções e inflar o bag para sempre.

Só que também te digo que esta ideia liquidez é ilusória, o verdadeiro capital são as pessoas, ferramentas, etc. A liquidez faz-se de hoje para amanhã criando uma nova rede monetária ou de crédito mútuo. Tudo isto é uma ilusão. Escrevi sobre isso aqui: https://upgradesociety.substack.com/p/the-ubi-token-free-money-for-the

O exemplo do Sardex, rede de crédito mútuo da Sardinia, 10k membros, começam todos a 0 e vão até -500 no máximo. Padeira compra tijolos, padeira -100, empresa tijolos +100, etc, etc. Crédito mútuo. Liquidez infinita porque nós somos a riqueza.

Este sistema é todo uma banhada meu caro. Mas lá está, eu acredito que o futuro será uma rede multi-monetária sempre, com Bitcoin, fiat de estado, crédito mútuo, etc. Agora, o acreditar que o Bitcoin é a única saída é a coisa mais absurda que temos que destruir.

Se não é passar de lamber as bolas do estado para lamber as bolas de uns quantos cromos que compraram cedo. Não queremos mais mestres.

Probably the most absurd thing I've heard in a while

But a great move to accelerate the Gen Z revolt. The only thing they have is online gaming!! take it out and it's a full on revolt eheh

E o re-inicio da monetização do ouro/Bitcoin

Incrível. Grande desmonetização. E o mais interessante é que algum desse capital rodou para dividendos. Ora vê os ETFs de dividendos. Isto é porque muito desse capital não pode ir sequer para dinheiro.

A questão será quando esta crise se espalhar e não houver cash flow em nenhum lado, só aí é que eles falam em imprimir e começa o debasemente trade

A Intel crashou 30% hoje meu!! que loucura

A fixed frame of reference that we/you decide, otherwise you're slave to someone else. We, the individuals, decide what's valuable. Nietzsche talked about extensively

People have consumed far too much propaganda and they equate Bitcoin with liberty. Bitcoin is technology, freedom is much larger than that

Exactly, credit can be anything, the idea that fiat money is bad is only true because governments use it badly. Fiat money is credit, credit can be great, credit just means trust in latin. A more trusting society will be the one that wins

This is why I like Saylor, he gets it perfectly. He's basically creating good credit already with STRC, and we can and definitely will build on top of that to create a better world.

So yeah, just two different perspectives of what is credit, cheers to you, have a great day!!

It all depends on what you use the credit for. You can use credit for regeneration and not speculation.

Implying that Bitcoin is the only way to define reality implies that Bitcoiners are by definition some sort of enlightened beings and the only ones that will define beauty through their so called enlightened economic decisions.

Very difficult position to maintain. Especially when you actually face it in reality.

First of all 95% of Bitcoiners I've met are not really interested in trading. How will Bitcoin generate more life, beauty and economy, if people don't even want to trade?

Bitcoin is digital gold. The gold standard failed for a reason. It failed because it concentrated wealth while not allowing a better a society for more people. Most people during the gold standard were miserable. How much did they benefit from the gold standard?

Bitcoiners simply ignore this aspect, somehow believing Bitcoin will make the whole world better overnight.

I love Bitcoin by the way, I really do and I'm very in it. I'm just saying that we should be real and truthful. Bitcoin is just digital gold. It will have a credit layer on top of it to fulfill what the Bitcoiners really want

The whole world runs on making money with money, how can you not make money with money?

If you can't expand credit you're basically advocating for something static like monarchy.

This is an absurd and anti-life position. And also part of the reason why the whole Bitcoin maxxi culture is not going to expand.

In my opinion of course