Our Future, Our Money: the Design of Currency Systems
“The only way to learn is by doing. [The point is] to learn in order to realize goals that were previously considered as unimaginable”.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri.
Capitalism is ontologically (and almost economically) dead, thus we do not need the kind of transitory revolutions that characterized the relation of opposition between those who produce real value and those who simply invest capital for production to occur. Another transitory revolution would cause a temporary resurrection of capitalism: indeed, capitalism can exist only if something else, us – or the multitude, continue to fight against it. By contrast, the singularities composing the multitude should have the interest on putting their hands on the dispostifs of the State only for dismantling them. A better strategy is a non-reactionary exodus from capital towards a self sustaining, horizontally developed and cooperation-inducing G/Local multi-currency system.
There is the need for a revolutionary transition. What does this mean?
Essentially, insurrection in terms of creating new types of currencies against that which has traditionally been called ‘money power’ must be directly anchored to the decisional process informing the institutionalization of a form of money system suitable for all and not just serving the private interest of a few.
Since modern fiat money, or capital, has been historically determined, and since it is the global cause of the disease of our economies as a factor penalizing our personal well-being through scarcity, inflationary pressures, devaluation, perpetual interest-bearing debt and the like, it does make sense to look for criteria to adopt for the design of better performing currency systems. Thereby, we need different types of currencies to use and earn in direct relation to the full expression of our potential in the context of a multi-layer P2P network horizontally connecting agents who participate into the economy.
In currency systems design, at the light of the slightly poor performance of modern money (nowadays, the dollar does not even value the paper onto which is printed), the main goal is therefore to design alternative an better currencies apt to guarantee the preservation of biological material commons (e.g. access to water, assets for clean energy production, etc.) while promoting the increase of biopolitical production of immaterial commons: codes, images, ideas, habits, knowledge and forms of life, which we can think of as ‘alter-modern’.
Currencies are to be invented in order to promote “biopolitical production, where labor is more and more responsible for the creation of cooperation [and] becomes more and more autonomous from the commands of capital”. (Negri and Hrdt, 2010)
Autonomy from behavioral pressures exerted on the public by modern money and cooperation between peers members of a horizontally developed economic network connecting the multitude are the assumptions to take into account when designing currency solutions for the exodus from traditional proprietary money: Bitcoin is a breakthrough in the juridical context of the property of money, now belonging to the miner or buyer, but not anymore legal propriety of a central issuing institution such the IMF, World Bank, BIS, Fed, ECB or the EFFS. More in general, the conscious creation of currency systems for open P2P transactions is fundamental for what Negri and Hardt call “the institutional development of the forces of social cooperation (Ibid.)”. In fact, the only way to make monetary, financial and banking crises like those we are experiencing nowadays a mistake of the past, we need to create a financially sustainable monetary system that will consider in its design features, the economic needs of all the population while giving at the same time the means of payment for maintaining and improving the commons.
Such framework instantiates itself when the singularities shaping the multitude, i.e. us, stop to see institutions as a constituted power, but start to see them as a constituent power. DYNDY perspective on currency systems design takes this into account by considering the exodus form proprietary money as an asymptotic process towards the DIY-development of the necessary telematic infrastructures and social capabilities of the multitude to begin and master a politically democratic and economically interconnected decisional process not based on traditional political representativity. If money can be the catalyzer of competitive behavior in a fiat-money world, it is also possible to design it to serve desirable interests of cooperative users inhabiting a different monetary world.
Thus, the disentanglement from the constraints of conventional money and the construction of an alternative way to deal with currency systems design are now two faces of the same coin: DYNDY thrive for the bottom-up insurrection against the former coupled with the institution of the latter in an auto-catalytic process of mutual reinforcement. Starting to design new money systems by learning the lessons from nature and the past are two processes leading to the same result: giving people a way to constitutionalize the revolutionary process into a viable form of self-government through the help of currency systems designed to work for the multitude.
In order to reach such result, we need “the sustain of a constitutional, governmental and juridical structure”. Hence, in the process of currency system design, DYNDY endorses a “Rechtswollen, i.e. an institutional and constitutional willingness apt to articulate in parallel the singularities of the multitude together with the heterogeneity of its own instances of revolt and rebellion instructing a powerful and durable process. (Ibid)”