“`html
Natalie Smolenski has established her reputation in the Bitcoin realm in recent times by providing her insightful perspectives on Bitcoin and its impact on the future world.
The PhD-holding anthropologist is poised to elevate her contributions related to Bitcoin with the new book she has curated and contributed to, The Satoshi Papers: Reflections On Political Economy After Bitcoin (published by the Bitcoin Policy Institute‘s branch of Bitcoin Magazine Books and available for pre-order currently).
The volume consists of writings from several of the leading scholars who examine Bitcoin, including Andrew M. Bailey, Avik Roy, and Leopoldo Bebchuk. With articles titled “Easy Money, Easy Wars? The Evolution of War Finance, Forever Wars, and the Prospects of a Bitcoin Peace” and “Dispute Resolution Without the State,” Smolenski and her associates delve into the potential changes in governance and authority that could arise from the presence and spread of Bitcoin.
I met with Smolenski to explore her reasons for publishing The Satoshi Papers at this specific time, the audience she aims to engage with the book, and why it should not be regarded as an “apology” for Bitcoin.
What motivated you to compile The Satoshi Papers?
In 2020, a colleague of mine, Lee Bratcher, and I co-founded the Texas Blockchain Council, a trade association advocating for the Bitcoin sector in Texas. We also organized the Texas Blockchain Summit, which was our annual event and among the first policy-centric conferences about Bitcoin in the United States.
After the inaugural Texas Blockchain Summit, I chatted with a close friend who indicated that the timing might be right to publish essays reflecting on this moment in the historical acceptance of Bitcoin — suggesting it represented a kind of rejuvenation moment for the American Republic.
Bitcoin plays a role in that narrative, but it does not encompass the entirety of it. Thus, there appeared to be a chance to gather contributions from diverse perspectives to discuss and examine what the relationship between the individual, society, and the state may resemble in a post-Bitcoin context.
I embraced that as a mission, and subsequently established the Texas Bitcoin Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on education. I decided to step back from policy-making to concentrate on some of the theoretical and scientific issues that I believe need to inform the policy discourse moving forward.
How did you select the contributors for the book?
We personally invited certain individuals, as I had prior relationships with them, and I recognized them as strong intellectuals in the Bitcoin community. Many responded positively, saying, “Yes, we would be delighted to contribute an essay.”
As a result, we extended some personal invitations alongside an open call for submissions, which went through multiple rounds. Initially, individuals submitted abstracts, and we provided feedback to the most promising ones, assessing whether they might be appropriate fits for the paper.
From those, we received initial drafts. We then conducted a second round of revisions based on the rigor of the academic arguments presented.
Can you elaborate on what political economy entails?
Political economy is a historically rooted concept. Before political science and economics diverged into distinct fields, there was a sphere of political economy, which examined how states and societies generated wealth, much like Adam Smith discussed in The Wealth of Nations.
Many individuals we now consider economists would have referred to themselves as political economists in that era because they understood that markets are significantly influenced by how human societies organize themselves politically. This does not imply that markets are merely a byproduct of the state. Some have recently proposed that argument, but the reality is far more intricate.
There has been a revival of interest in political economy lately, partially in response to the perceived shortcomings of theoretical models in conventional or mainstream economics today in grasping the complexities of markets without acknowledging the political domain.
How will political economy evolve with the existence of Bitcoin?
That’s a colossal question, and it is what the essays in this book tackle from various perspectives.
The creation and maintenance of currency is one of many roles of the state — whether deemed legitimate or illegitimate, based on one’s theory of the state.
Bitcoin has automated one aspect of the functions of the nation-state. However, it does not produce a centrally governed token that serves as the jurisdictional medium for debt settlement across nations.
Thus, Bitcoin exists in tension with the nation-state, yet does not inherently dismantle it, which is an intriguing area for exploration.
Bitcoin presents an alternative to government-backed currencies, but the mere existence of an alternative does not imply that government-issued money will vanish. Instead, it compels governments to recognize the fact that they do not hold a monopoly over what their citizens use as a store of value, measuring unit, and exchange medium.
In a parallel way, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves as a reminder to the government that it does not possess a monopoly on violence. The state must navigate the tension with individual sovereignty — which encompasses the rights to transact and bear arms — suggesting there are boundaries to state sovereignty.
What makes this book distinct from all other publications on Bitcoin thus far?
There have been very few comprehensive academic works on Bitcoin. The primary instance that I can recall is Resistance Money, released this year.
The Satoshi Papers stands out in that, instead of being authored entirely by a single writer, it is an anthology of articles by various scholars across different disciplines. It comprises diverse voices from various social science domains discussing Bitcoin. It’s the only publication of its kind that achieves this.
Another aspect that differentiates The Satoshi Papers is that it does not serve as an apology for Bitcoin — in the classical sense of the term. Apologia means a justification or argument in favor. We are not advocating for Bitcoin. Bitcoin already exists. It is an established reality. It is both a material and social fact.
Consequently, the questions we are investigating in this collection are: What sort of influence does Bitcoin exert? What significant political and geopolitical inclinations are shaping the manifestation of self-sovereignty and influencing the emergence of self-sovereign technological infrastructures? What does this reveal about the essence of money as a social construct?
Money, much like language and law, is an emergent social construct that does not necessitate the state. Nonetheless, there are top-down influences regarding value creation and management that do…
“`impact the methods by which currency is utilized in human society. Therefore, in certain respects, the volumes are delving into that tension between hierarchical and grassroots vectors of social organization.
Why has academia not only been hesitant to discuss Bitcoin but seemingly largely opposed to it?
Regrettably, academia has been the nucleus of what I believe is aptly termed a cultural transformation in English-speaking nations and in the West at large. I posit that there has been a push towards liberation for historically marginalized populations. This has not only profoundly impacted scholarly work but has guided it in ways that increasingly favor the role of the state over the significance of the individual and civil society in fulfilling the mission of liberation.
Consequently, there exists a pervasive skepticism of anything reminiscent of individualism, which is effectively perceived as a disguise for exploitation. For this reason, movements such as Bitcoin, which are described as being more “anarchist-identified” or “right-leaning” — despite my argument that Bitcoin possesses no clear political bias — operate within a highly-politicized tribal context and are aligned with political adversaries.
Thus, this volume was deliberately designed to intervene in that environment, largely by refusing to apologize for Bitcoin. No, we are not adopting a timid stance here. The existence of Bitcoin is a tangible reality that social scientists must contend with. You may disagree with it. It may not align with your vision of liberation, but it exists and has been created solely through the voluntary efforts of individuals worldwide who frequently selflessly devote their time and lives to establish this pathway of freedom in an era marked by severe and escalating state regulation.
There is a sense of assurance in The Satoshi Papers that arises from academic rigor, enabling engagement in the discussions within academia. The contributors are well-versed in the traditions, familiar with the literatures, capable of addressing them, and in no way feel compelled to apologize for what all these scholars will eventually take for granted as part of the world’s framework.
Everyone will eventually utilize Bitcoin. They may not be aware of it, but it is destined to become integrated into the fabric of their transactions. Consequently, this presents an opportunity for those within academia who possess the insight and willingness to engage in a proactive discussion about these matters.
What readership do you envision for this book?
Anthropologists, economists, philosophers, historians, and economic historians.
At the same time, is this the kind of book that someone who reads The Bitcoin Standard might also find appealing?
Yes, I believe this book holds distinctive crossover appeal. It is both understandable and accessible for the educated general reader, while also meeting the expectations of a scholarly audience in search of elements such as literature reviews, engagement with historical debates, source critique, and so forth.
The book’s epilogue, “Peer-To-Peer Is A Human Right”, is the transcript from a speech you delivered this past April at the Bitcoin Policy Summit. Why do you believe this point should be made so clearly, particularly to academics?
The majority of the social sciences and humanities currently lean left politically for lack of a more precise term, but the interpretation of that has evolved. In the early 20th century and late 19th century, even extending into the mid-19th century, the political left was profoundly influenced by anarchist reform movements, and there existed a robust tradition of anarcho-leftist ideology. That essentially dissipated following the Second World War.
It appears that the anarchist intellectual tradition regarding Bitcoin is more prevalent in Europe than in the United States. Have you observed this?
That may indeed be accurate. I’m actually not very acquainted with the current landscape of academia in Western Europe, but I find it entirely plausible, especially considering that there were quite a number of thinkers from the French anthropological tradition in the early 20th century who were distinctly anarcho-leftist, anarcho-socialist.
There emerged a dominance of a certain extremely statist approach to socialism and even communism within the American academy, in the Anglophone academic sphere that has endured to this day, where, as I previously mentioned, there exists a mistrust of anything suggesting individualism as bourgeois arrogance or a reassertion of social, racial, and gender hierarchies, blah, blah, blah.
This is merely a peculiarity of the historical period we find ourselves in, and I suspect as the surveillance and control exerted by the state possibly turns against some of those individuals within academia, there will be a heightened awareness of the importance of grassroots strategies for liberation.
Nevertheless, at this moment, it is challenging for many to envision. They persistently view the state as the remedy for social inequality and oppression.
Many regard the state as a tool for wealth redistribution, yet fail to recognize the detrimental effects of currency debasement due to money printing by the Federal Reserve, which operates in conjunction with the state. Why aren’t academics addressing the harmful consequences of currency devaluation?
Well, I believe the political mindset of numerous social scientists has been significantly influenced by framing capitalism and the capitalist as the fundamental adversary of humanity.
What they are searching for is the Leviathan, as they seek something that possesses the might to overpower individuals like Elon Musk, whom they loathe and hold accountable for nearly every social issue. There isn’t much that offers redemption in that kind of stereotypical social perspective.
However, I believe there are individuals within academia, even those who may share that bias, who are rigorous thinkers desiring engagement with thoughtful arguments from “an alternate viewpoint.”
The dilemma with culture wars is that they tend to provoke reactions that are just as trivial and simplistic as the originally posited perspectives. Thus, if you enter the realm espousing caricatured viewpoints, you will likely attract other caricatured responses. As a result, it devolves into a tit-for-tat that leads nowhere. A part of the goal of The Satoshi Papers is to enter that dialogue from a different angle.
This is not a Republican text. This is not a form of apologia, as I mentioned, for any political stance or ideology. Rather, it serves as an intervention in a scholarly discussion regarding the origin and essence of money.
Therefore, if you wish to challenge its assertions, you certainly can. They are explicitly present. In fact, we encourage debate. If our authors are mistaken in any aspect, we seek to uncover that, but we will not be engaging in ideological battles here.
What do you aspire for individuals to gain from The Satoshi Papers?
If there is only one takeaway from it, it is that your liberation does not necessitate the state. You do not have to await governmental action.
For heaven’s sake, seize control of your life. The ability to do so lies within your reach, and here are several illustrations of how individuals throughout history have opted to achieve this.
We feature a couple of studies in the book that speculate on the following: What could credit potentially resemble under a bitcoin standard? What varying fiscal scenarios could future presidential administrations in the United States explore?
The realm of political potential is far broader than we often perceive from our contentious position as culture warriors today, and that’s what we’re striving to unveil.
