Anarchy and Blockchain: Why Bakunin Would Not Be a Bitcoin Holder — A Sociologist's In-Depth Analysis
The connection between 19th-century classical anarchism and modern crypto-anarchism is one of the most captivating yet confusing topics in the crypto community. Many see Bitcoin and blockchain as a direct embodiment of the ideas of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. However, as a deep analysis by sociologist and author of the book "Anarchy, or Life Without a Boss" Vadim Volkov shows, these two worlds are separated by a chasm that cannot be bridged by a simple coincidence of terms.
Anarchy as Utopia: From Proudhon to Smart Contracts
Classical anarchists, starting with Proudhon, sought a way to build a society without a state, relying on direct voluntary connections and mutual aid. Their ideal was a social contract concluded among all participants, without a central authority. However, this concept had a fundamental weakness: it was based on the notion of an unchanging and benevolent human nature that would flourish once state oppression disappeared.
Crypto-anarchists took a different path. They do not believe in the inherent goodness of humans, and therefore propose minimizing trust through algorithms and smart contracts. As Volkov aptly noted, in this system, "there is no human at all; they are replaced by an algorithm and program code." The humanism that was the heart of classical anarchism completely disappears, giving way to the cold logic of code.
Why Wouldn't Bakunin Buy Bitcoin?
The expert's key conclusion: Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin would hardly recognize their ideas in blockchain. Social anarchists were consistently anti-capitalists. They denied not only the state but also the market, competition, inequality, and money itself as a tool of oppression. Their entire line of thinking is directed against techno-optimism and the financial markets on which the crypto industry is built.
Bitcoin, like any other cryptocurrency, is primarily a financial instrument operating within a market paradigm. For a classical anarchist, this would be unacceptable. The connection between their works and cryptocurrencies, according to Volkov, is "too heavily mediated" and is more of an intellectual stretch than a direct continuity.
The Fate of Crypto-Anarchism: Between Utopia and the State
Crypto-anarchists have created a powerful technological foundation—blockchain and consensus algorithms. But, as the expert rightly notes, creating infrastructure is only the first step. The main problem is scaling and the adoption of the technology by the majority. Society does not quickly embrace new tools, and any technology is neutral: its real meaning is determined by its use, which may be far from the creators' intent.
In my view, the key challenge for the crypto industry today is not creating new protocols, but building user-friendly interfaces that can "bridge" complex technology to the mass user. If independent engineers fail to solve this problem, the state itself will seize the initiative, adapting blockchain ideas for its own purposes. History shows that the state is a monopoly that tolerates no competitors, and it will find a way to either subdue or absorb any decentralized technology if it becomes powerful enough.