What would Marx think of cryptocurrency?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
What would Marx think of cryptocurrency?
If Marx were alive today, would he approve of this blockchain technology?
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Ben Munster
Translation: TechFlow Intern
Among certain left-wing online circles deeply curious about crypto, one question has lingered across Crypto Twitter: If Marx were alive today, would he support blockchain technology?
Last year, left-wing cultural writer Hussein Kesvani argued in an article titled "The Left Should Talk About Crypto" that Web3 and Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies, for better or worse, are “inevitably” going to reshape the world.
He contends that the left should reclaim this technology from libertarians and anarchocapitalists—many of whom borrow terminology and concepts originally rooted in socialism. Among them is Li Jin, a venture capitalist with notable influence in the crypto space, who claims to be a student of Marx and tweeted last year that DAOs represent "the next evolution of the labor movement."
Unsurprisingly, such appropriation infuriates much of the left. In his piece, Kesvani urges leftists to understand the fundamentals of cryptocurrency so they can build more compelling narratives than those offered by venture capital firms. “I believe imagining different futures requires some understanding of crypto and blockchain technology—not just functionally, but also critically engaging with the language and power structures shaping the new internet,” Kesvani wrote.
With Web3 now capturing significant mainstream attention, divisions have emerged within leftist circles—particularly among traditional, staunchly anti-capitalist factions—over whether crypto as a technology is even compatible with their values. Many older leftist thinkers encountering Web3 for the first time see it as the ultimate form of financialization, masked in the rhetoric of mutual aid and equality, yet still serving rent-seeking classes by attempting to price-tag oxygen molecules. Others, however, adopt a more tempered view, acknowledging issues like fraud and greed while retaining cautious optimism about innovations such as DAOs.
Even within Ethereum and its adjacent communities, debates persist over whether their ideological leanings implicitly align with the left. While Ethereum adherents tend to be far more left-leaning than the libertarian Bitcoin faithful—and have published countless essays on good governance and equitable wealth distribution—they are not always eager to identify explicitly with “socialism” or bind themselves strictly to classical leftist frameworks.
Crypto Is Just Nonsense
Negative coverage can be found in Jacobin, a Marxist publication that once tried to ignore Web3 (and I’m too lazy to alternate with “crypto”), but now treats the industry as an annoying phenomenon worth actively pushing back against. Over recent months, it has focused particularly on debunking utopian claims around crypto’s “democratization of wealth.” One article argues that “utopian rhetoric around freedom, decentralization, and ownership economies may help investors sleep at night—but at its core, it's merely a marketing strategy for selling a new generation of products to the public.”
Similarly, another recent piece laments the proliferation of “shitcoin” projects in football, especially “fan tokens” that claim to give supporters a “voice,” but in reality only monetize trivialities like stickers and “victory songs.”
Another article rejects the notion that NFTs benefit creators, framing the speculative frenzy around NFTs as a diversion from opportunities to better distribute wealth in the post-pandemic era.
The article states bluntly: "Simply put, NFTs are bullshit."
On the surface, it makes sense why the left instinctively despises all forms of crypto. They ask: What is blockchain technology other than a mechanism extending the harmful tentacles of mass capitalism into every realized and unrealized corner of modern life? Marx opposed capitalism’s misallocation of capital and its profit-at-all-costs mentality—what fuels bourgeois greed more than Dogecoin? They add that “user ownership,” exemplified by Ethereum mining, is illusory. Workers don’t control the levers of industry; they hold strings of numbers and JPEGs.
And half of it is funded by venture capital firms, to boot.
David Broder, an editor at Jacobin, told me: "To me, it feels very artificial and unhealthy. I honestly don’t see what social purpose it serves."
This opposition has gained broad traction, most notably in a meticulously researched two-hour YouTube video released last month by the Folding Ideas channel. Even centrist-left critics—those the left dismisses as “boring moderates”—have joined in. However, these critiques largely sidestep the inherent social problems embedded in Web3 design, focusing instead on minimal environmental concerns—such as how transacting one NFT consumes as much electricity as Norway/Peru/Turkmenistan—and veering into outright conspiracy theories. Who knows, maybe Bored Apes really are Nazi propaganda.
The Future Belongs to You
Yet beyond the left, people have begun embracing certain aspects of the technology, albeit often maintaining a cautious distance to avoid its many pitfalls.
Some argue that the technology possesses anti-authoritarian potential—its distrust of big banks and emphasis on democratic ownership of online platforms do resonate with leftist values, even if it isn’t fully trustworthy.
For instance, left-wing tech writers Ali Breland and Max Read have both noted that in today’s highly unequal economy, investing in crypto is no less legitimate than any other money-making strategy; that is, if investment bankers can conjure absurd sums of money out of thin air, why shouldn’t others participate in the scam? But this is less an endorsement of crypto than a strategic concession to its dominance.
Are There Any Leftists Who Actually Like Crypto?
The most promising leftist defense of crypto centers on DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations). DAOs can be broadly understood as collective enterprises accessible to holders of certain cryptocurrencies—who also gain voting rights within the organization. Leftists (and, as we’ve seen, certain VC groups) have long discussed their potential to empower workers.
Even Jacobin has called DAOs “interesting,” though with strong caveats. Among left-leaning DAO advocates, Austin Robey has been deeply involved in movements around platform cooperatives—digital services owned by users. In a recent article, he argues that DAO token models could serve as practical tools for such cooperatives seeking efficiency and scale. He adds that DAOs can also learn from traditional cooperatives how to avoid common pitfalls: unequal distribution of token wealth (and thus voting power), formalization of self-serving “communities,” and rapid devolution into investment-seeking theater.
Robey isn’t surprised when other leftists attack crypto on environmental and social grounds—he often agrees with them. “If you care about cooperatives, I can’t imagine you wouldn’t be interested in DAOs,” he says. “We need good, hopeful people trying to reshape and reimagine these technologies for better ends, rather than handing the tools over to people we disagree with.”
Robey offers controversial NFTs as another example: “I see a lot of people fixate on NFTs, conflating them mindlessly with crypto art on specific networks,” Robey adds. “They fail to realize that NFTs are like general-purpose computing primitives. They don’t have to be ugly art made by obnoxious people; they can represent platform-independent memberships, freeing you from corporate tech monopolies.”
He adds that crypto doesn’t have to be “about financial speculation, treating everything like the stock market. I want to capture its social value.”
Interestingly, MolochDAO—one of the earliest versions of today’s DAOs and arguably the starting point of the DAO revival—was created by Ameen Soleimani, a staunch anti-socialist. When I recently asked him about this, he reacted passionately. Socialism, he said, is authoritarian; the state is a monopoly on violence that restricts freedom, and without coercion, socialism is “impossible” to implement.
For Soleimani, DAOs are ideology-agnostic, post-capitalist coordination tools. In an interview, he said: “It’s broader than capitalism. The output of DAOs has a kind of political neutrality—it’s about maximizing coordination. We don’t care what political ideology you want to pursue. We care about how humans can collaborate effectively.”
To illustrate, Soleimani references the origins of the cypherpunk movement, which began with cryptographers giving individuals military-grade encryption so they could “communicate without fear of surveillance.” This was a purely liberal philosophy—both anti-capitalist and capitalist at once.
Yet whether you like it or not, much of what Soleimani champions aligns perfectly with socialism—albeit a lesser-known branch: libertarian socialism—which envisions replacing top-down corporations with millions of semi-competitive, worker-owned cooperatives. It’s not just similar to DAOs—it’s identical!
The argument for DAOs as cooperatives might sound familiar because it’s exactly the argument made by Li Jin. Seeing leftists arrive at the same conclusion as venture capitalists feels somewhat uncanny. That’s why some dismiss the technology (and its accompanying user-worker liberation philosophy) outright as fraudulent appropriation. That’s also why last year I smugly replied on Twitter to an optimistic leftist: “DAOs that actually perform collective investment functions are less socialist than they are mass capitalism on steroids—where everyone is a shareholder.”
Shortly after, however, I received a response from someone named Mat Dryhurst, co-host of the left-leaning tech podcast Interdependence and one of the more radical thinkers on blockchain’s liberatory potential.
Dryhurst disagreed with my assertion that DAOs—and crypto more broadly—are purely capitalist tools, offering a compelling counterpoint: “I think what’s most interesting and promising about crypto is that it creates new needs and builds unintuitive alliances. Maybe it’s imperfect, but it delivers idealized, democratically governed venture capital firms—rather than leaving us with unrealized, beautiful demands from the left.”
What a brilliant idea! In a way, Dryhurst is articulating a classical socialist concept: that the technological foundations laid by capitalism will ultimately support the workers’ future. And if crypto makes building left-oriented things—like cooperatives—profitable, then venture capitalists like Li Jin may unwittingly find themselves on the side of class struggle.
As Marx once quipped, capitalists will sell you the rope with which to hang them—but in this case, the capitalist is venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, selling you a speculative DAO token.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
