So how does a factory owner become a socialist?

So how does a factory owner become a socialist?

Other urls found in this thread:

At gunpoint.

By aiding socialist organizations and contributing to socialist theory.

Capitalists are much quicker to develop class consciousness than workers.

A handful are bound to develop class consciousness and then deliberately choose the other side.

Just be prepared to surrender it with grace when the workers rise up. There is nothing more that you can really do; co-ops cannot compete, because treating workers like human beings means your competitors will be able to out produce you.

By seeing the effects of his father's factories on workers and inheriting the factory

Mental gymnastics, usually.

By understanding that while the bourgeoisie enjoy the position of being the materially muh privileged cogs of capitalism, they are still cogs nonetheless. No one is free in capitalism and all those who exist in it, from the bottom to the top, exist in a constant state conflict. A bourgeoisie enjoys their position only by the tip of the balance, by being ready to strangle those above him while being strangled from below. Capitalism is in of itself a frantic struggle to stay above the waterline, where everyone is to take every advantage they can or be drowned under the mass. The true tragedy of capitalism is no one is outside of it and that it will even be in the workers self-interest to be a bourgeoisie while in it, it would be against your current material interest not to. The deeper truth is that while you can change your position the only way you can move forward and be truly free, to be able to direct your labor how you would outside the confines of capital, is to put an end to the class conflict altogether. In capitalism you exist in flux, maybe a bourgeoisie today, maybe a prole tomorrow. But in communism you exist simply as you are, a person with a will and a destiny to dictate.

"class consciousness" is a meme; sure, people are more likely to take an ideology that they feel would make them better off, but in general humans are finicky creatures and will believe whatever they want

people, not predicates, do things

It's because class is an identity that not everyone really 'recognizes' or stands behind/is cognizant of. People will always be unequal, so 'class-based' differences will always exist in some way or another.

what the hell is this post?

no, your class is your relation to the state, whereas most things people refer to as "identity" basically amount to what aesthetic preferences people have
in terms of ability, obviously, but politically everyone who calls themselves "leftist" would disagree
not if the state was abolished

Believing in the goal of socialism is sufficient to make him a socialist.
If he wants to actually help the cause he can use some of his profits to fund R&D into automation.

Economic status doesn't rely solely on the state, the two can be interconnected, but this assumes that some 'evolution', so to speak, towards a hierarchy (of economic ability) won't occur if the state isn't around. Not necessarily true.
That's not what identity means, literally. "Identity" is defined as: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is. That's really open-ended, and I happen to think that is an accurate definition. It doesn't necessarily have to be an aesthetic preference, but it can be.
You can call yourself whatever you want politically, the equality issue is a prime example of an ought-is fallacy. What people believe 'ought' to be is so fervently and idealistically admired that it is often forgotten what actually 'is', which is an inequality because of the natural hierarchy of life, both in the animal kingdom and in human societies.
This ties into the first part of this post. Let's elaborate on this point. If tomorrow, the government of the US falls apart, class as it relates to the state will obviously crumble. All the subsidies, for example, would be rendered useless. That doesn't mean that all the assets a company possesses are linked to the state. For example, people who own precious metals or Bitcoin: there would still be an inequality between people. There will literally always be people who have more than the next guy, or succeed, just out of the mere fact that the 'luck-based' factor would come in (i.e. some guy would succeed and find a treasure trove).

"Private property" - that is, property that you do not use but no one else can use without your approval - only exists given some form of a State. How exactly would someone who "owns" precious metals actually own them without the State or some mercenary company which would amount to a State?

useless imaginary virtual number

precious metals, useless to those individuals who don't feel attracted to their shine. They're not even good for electric cables. copper will always be better and more common.

don't you see that all that shit you speak off is just in the imagination? landowners would have to get the fuck out and treat land with no more "owness" than anyone else with relative same power or get killed without state.

workers are simply stronger and more. they can make communes anywhere they wish, nothing would withstand them.

if there are classes it's because there is a state. there can't be classes without state.

Simply because private property law exists and defends private property does not mean that the 'truth' of the concept is defined from that one point (i.e. the law) and nowhere else; that's true only in the context of the current legal codes that exist. The 'state' is not the progenitor of enforcing a set of rules, it merely coopts enforcement to create regulations. One of which is private property laws. This is the same as saying 'because the state has laws that protect against pollution (anti-pollution regulations), anti-pollution as a concept exists only because of the state'. The state isn't the one that allows private property to exist, it is one of the ways private property is in existence just as how anti-pollution regulation is in existence. That doesn't mean that private property is dependent on the state, you're assuming that the state is the only thing that can defend private property. You go on to make an age-old conflation which refutes this premise in your post.
A gang of mercenaries that form a company aren't the same thing as a state. A state is a specific "political community" or government. Mercenaries, or whatever 'protection agency' that is hired to defend private property just as the state does isn't automatically a 'state' just because they defend something. You're ignoring the specific definition of what it means to be a state.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. All the useless stuff is only useful to people who value it. People will still value bitcoin even if their state is in shambles or is unstable. Bitcoin is an excellent tool for third world nations who have corrupt states that might as well be defunct. If they give it use, it is traded. That's the whole point.

Currency happens to be defined by the state in certain nations around the world. It doesn't mean that an agreed-upon unit of exchange, or even rudimentary methods of trade like barter, are dependent on the state. They are observed within a state setting, that isn't the same as claiming 'A, therefore B'. As I defined class above, these inequalities of economic ability will always exist, regardless of a state because not all men are created equal. Even if you want to believe some tabula rasa pipe dream, the off-chance of pure luck will always set some men above others.
I don't understand the rest of your posts. "Owness" is not a word. I can't respond if I don't understand what you mean to say, so I don't wanna guess.

and yet, they are

But they aren't. All I have to do is point to literally one example of exchange occurring outside of the existence/confines of a state/its regulations to disprove your hypothesis.
Just the other day, I payed my friend with an IOU to help me move. I told him that when he was going to move, which is actually in a little bit, that I would be there to help him. I basically deferred his services (because neither of us wanted to do it if there wasn't a quid pro quo). If neither of us were going to just 'do it' for the other and the exchange of services occurred only when his word of honour was given to ensure that I would help him out, that's an exchange of sorts. These value-judgements will occur with things/services that I want more than things/services that the other guy doesn't, and this happens all the time. That's what a gray market is. Again, it's very tempting to make a claim of 'exchange is dependent on the state' instead of making the more-obvious claim of 'exchange occurs within a state setting'. Dependency is a huge claim and you have not proved it.

I'm going to assume the rest of your wall of text is just an example, so I'm just gonna focus on this

Currency has an isolated production line that's protected by each state in some way (i.e. making the paper illegal) to make sure that the value of that commodity is more than its actual use-value. aka the supply of currency is kept way way below its actual demand so that it has a high exchange-value.

This relies on the existence of a state, and there's no way you can squeeze yourself around this statement.

"State" does not mean "government". You seem to be operating under the pretense that all states must exercise a veneer of republicanism to their subjects, but this isn't the case at all. What exactly separates the behavior of the Spartan elites towards the helots, or the Nazis towards the Poles, from the behavior of a "gang of mercenaries"?

capitalism hurts the capitalist, not as much as the prole obv but still

A factory owner can still operate under the dictates of socialism. In this case he would only be the face, and maybe he would manage some matters, and he would pay himself according to his labour.

Of course this won't ever happen on a large scale (not even on a local one), but a factory owner can still be essentially a socialist, he just have to renounce to every benefit of owning factories.

the value of Bitcoin is directly tied into its exchange value with real currencies, which are backed by state power and given value by taxation in that currency.

Shame, if you bothered to read what I said, you'd come across the example which did not rely on currency in the sense of some bill or coin, but an "IOU", which is not, in any way, manufactured, regulated, or distributed by a state/state agency. That's what the gray market point is trying to make, but you admitted you didn't read what I wrote so I am not surprised that this went past your head.
If you were to read anything in that post, read the last line: Dependency is a huge claim and you have not proved it.

That's one of the definitions I found, though. Rather, it was elaborating on the definition we are using in this context.
"a government or politically organized society having a particular character"
A government doesn't have to be a republican government necessarily. It isn't "a government that is republican or none at all", that's not what I meant.
The mercenaries are hired and once their services are no longer needed, they are dismissed. The German soldiers weren't hired, they were government personnel. Any act of aggression is not equally interchangeable just because there is oppression and suffering. There is a difference between German troops killing Poles and mercenaries defending land. Simply because people die doesn't mean it's interchangeable.

Anything that is produced exists within a potential marketplace where it is juxtaposed to other goods that can be traded for it. A table for a backpack, for example. But Bitcoin can still exist outside of state currency, it isn't dependent on it. Just because it is exchanged to/from USD does not mean that it is dependent on it. It is actually indirectly tied into it, because it is only 'related' to the USD if it is traded. It is only as powerful as the worth people assign to it. So if you mean to say that Bitcoin will be irrelevant once the USD, or any other currency, goes under and nobody values it, that's a tautology.

Thats just called everyone owning the factory

This can be done under capitalism. Again, this won't ever apply to capitalism on a large scale, I was just responding to OP.

Do you believe managerial oversight within a company is a negligent component (that would justify its removal from the pay scale) of the wellbeing of the company?

Under socialism managers will still be needed, the difference is that they (theoretically) will be paid according to their labor. There's nothing inherently wrong in it, but of course these position of powers will always be exploited under capitalism, unless, as I've said, the owner decides to literally give up all of his benefits in this current society.

The point is that it cannot. It only has value if it can be exchanged with a currency backed by state power, ergo it relies on state power. Admittedly the line is vague in the era of fiat money but the fundamental of money having value because of a real power backing it remains.

For what? Surely something they can use to sustain themselves, no? And since they're aiding the property owner, the property owner is paying, yes? What, then, does the property owner pay the mercenaries with, other than the goods he extorts from the workers with mercenary help? The result is that wealth flows from the workers to those who employ the threat of force (in other words, a class system and a State); the exact mechanisms behind this transferal are of secondary importance.
So what happens if the workers try to stop being extorted from again? The owner will just hire the mercenaries again and stop them. The reality is that the services of the State - in this case, the mercenaries - are ALWAYS necessary, given the existence of a ruling class, such as the owner.

They already are, most managers of small businesses and even big companies are paid according to their managerial efforts and the positions they hold. It isn't some arbitrary number they just increase to inflate along with their egos. That's why I asked: do you believe managerial oversight within a company is needed, or is it negligent?
If you say that they are needed, then what do you propose? How should we change from the system of payment managers are under now?

saved for truth

Now this is getting into some dystopian speculation where all global markets crash and nothing will work. We've had doomsday kooks go on and on about these 'theories' for ages with nothing but gut feelings instead of empirical evidence, so I can't be inclined to believe you with your claim because I can't disprove it: it's a thought experiment.
This also relies on Bitcoin only having value once it is exchanged into another currency. People pay with their wallets using bitcoin, and only bitcoin, all the time. There are people who trade with gold, that's not related to the USD or any other currency in any way. If people value something, they will trade for it. Simply because people trade in a state-regulated unit of exchange doesn't mean that the collapse of that unit means all other trade with decentralized units of exchange ceases, or that those units become worthless within a market.

By giving up ownership to convert his factory into a worker cooperative.

Why do people hire guard dogs. Same reasoning.
They, being the mercenaries? Or the guy who hires them. Also, what sustenance? I'm just paying a guy to do something for me. If he values my money more than his time, and I value his time more than I do my money, we can trade.
If the mercenaries stand guard, yeah. They are basically security guards. Purchasing security guards from a security guard company doesn't become a state just because they kick you out for trespassing. A state is a governing body with specific legal implications.
I can pay them with the gold I found in my backyard. I dug into the ground and found a bunch of gold. If my example is preposterous to you, then you will understand my feelings when you paint me as some slave owner or a business owner when the scenario was concerned mainly with your conflation of the existence and implications of a state versus hiring agents from a security company or some mercenary. You're jumping from how I pay them, which is irrelevant to the claim that private property is dependent on the state: state enforcement isn't the only way to allow for the existence of private property, which is the point I'm trying to defend.
Maybe in the third world. You are not under any threat of force from any other agent in civilized society to be employed. Unless you can point me to some entity that casts this threat of force, then you have no claim to victimize yourself as you have done.
The 'they' I am referring to are the mercenaries. Nobody is extorting them, it is a voluntary exchange. If I LACK physical power to protect myself/my private property, what makes you think I am forcing them to work for me? They're fucking mercenaries, they are a paramilitary group. There is no extortion, that's ridiculous. I already said: I value their time more than I do my money, and they value my money more than they do their time, so we trade.
Stop the mercenaries against the mercenaries? How many mercenaries are you creating? This is just one group we're talking about.

the original post that referred to Bitcoin was about the American government collapsing (more of a utopia tbh)
yes, but only because it has exchange value with 'real' currencies
Money used to be a deed to gold or silver, you do know that right? Gold as a physical, limited resource has value that isn't based on pure state backing, unlike fiat money. It's value AS a currency relies on a legal framework though.
'Course not, but things that only have value as a generalised means of exhange, IE money do lose their value. Gold or non-money means of exchange still does have its physical, material use.

That question was asking what do the mercenaries get out of the job, not the owner.
Money is pieces of paper. It's only valuable in terms of what you get out of it - material sustenance and luxury..
Who says your worthless gold is worth the food you, your tenants, and the mercenaries alike need to survive?
No, no one isn't literally pointing a gun at me telling me to work or get shot, but what does happen is that I am unable to work without letting some asshole who does nothing or very little get a cut because the State says he "owns" the MoP I use to work. The wage labor system works according to this matter but since it's a bit more complicated we'll talk as if I'm a farmer; if I want to farm land, since I don't own any, I have to rent or buy it from someone who does own it. That person is someone who isn't using the farmland anyway - otherwise, why would he deprive himself of it by selling/renting it to me? - so I'm basically paying him solely because if I didn't he would be able to ring up the State and employ violence against me as a "squatter". Also, I don't have the option of engaging in a transaction of something of this sort with someone or another, because if I don't, because I don't have property to run this game on someone else, I starve.
What the hell are you talking about? The mercenaries might be being extorted by you because you're utterly dependent upon their existence and provide them very little, but the "extortion" I was talking about was happening to those you're hiring the mercenaries to "defend your property" from.
No, again, you're hiring the mercenaries to defend against those who would otherwise use your property without giving you a cut. The second you actually dismiss the mercenaries, those people would go and use your property - meaning you're forced to constantly keep the threat of violence from the mercenaries over their head. We're not talking about two different gangs of mercenaries.

*no one is literally
*I don't have the option of not

No, dystopia. Global market collapse and subsequent currency collapse is not something desirable, markets are vital to civilization and trade. Even if the US collapses, I'm just using the USD as one example. That would still be horrible, that's economic instability for a period of time. I doubt it would be a peaceful period of time, really.
No, these people have been exclusively trading in Bitcoin and have literally never come across USD or GBP, full stop. As in, literally no exchange. It has use as a unit of exchange precisely because it is decentralized, to them. Speaking entirely anecdotally, many of my friends trade exclusively with bitcoin. I was thinking of getting into it, too.
Yes, that doesn't mean that gold today is dependent on USD. There's a credit card that lets you buy things from people with only gold. It just so happens that the gold is traded to USD with the vendor. If the US collapses, the fiat currency will be useless but the gold will still have a value point that is higher than the fiat currency.
I didn't disagree with that in the point you quoted, I just said that people trade with gold. I never said that currency has never been gold-backed, or that gold is equivalent to fiat currency.
If the legal entity crashes and burns, gold will still have value so long as people give it value. If I want your precious metals, I will trade you something I have that you want (presuming you want what I have more than your precious metals) for it: this doesn't need a government to occur. That's why I was mentioning gray markets; we can even talk about black markets, for example.
I agree, I'm not claiming otherwise. But many people are drawn to bitcoin because it's decentralized. That is a quality the USD will not have. Some people I know (anecdotes, like I said) have literally only used bitcoin to trade with each other, nothing else.

Commonwealth user with the best answers

Like I said, if I work as a mercenary and I value, say, the gold I will be paid from some guy who needs my services safeguarding his rent-a-car/taxicab more than I do my time, and the owner of the taxicab values my services more than he does his gold, then we trade. If it's mutually beneficial, we both get something out of it.
Money isn't only fiat currency. I can pay the mercenaries in free pony rides if that's what gets them off.
You're missing my point: only if the trade is mutually beneficial does it occur. So obviously the gold, or pony rides, or whatever isn't worthless: it is worth enough for the mercenary to wish to trade it for his time.
Then that isn't the threat of force. You ought to revise your wording.
Why would you be outraged if the asshole who owns the business gets a cut? Who cares. That isn't a threat of force, you're describing an emotional judgement you are making towards the earnings of another person. That's not what force means. Also, the business owner can still own the business even if the state doesn't exist, that's the entire debate we're having about security guards. If you decide to launch a tirade against the owner, the security in the building will kick you out. This can be done without the existence of a state.
Sure, makes sense.
So? You just said you didn't have any farmland, so why would your interpretation of what other plots of farmland 'do' be relevant at all? I think letting sports cars gather dust in Jay Leno's garage is a travesty, doesn't mean anything if I don't own them. It's just my opinion.
Well, if you trespass on the plot of farmland you said you didn't own, you are not some innocent agent. If I come up to you and aggress against you or your private property, regardless of how it is being utilized (say, a sports car) without your consent, I don't think you would take too kindly to that, would you? Again, if you're okay with me sleeping on your plot of farmland, be my guest. Other people might not like that, and that's their choice because it's their farmland.
Well, you picked a bad example. Just because you don't have farmland doesn't mean you will starve. It isn't literally "unless I own farmland to grow food, I starve": that's a false dichotomy.

I don't think there is a 'might' in terms of extortion. Extortion relies on force and threatening actions, there is no 'well, I think it was extortion, it might have been': you will realize it when somebody is extorting you.
And again, the voluntary setting I put forth means that, by definition, it isn't extortion: mutually beneficial exchanges are not extortion.
That's what I was meaning to say: I cannot employ force or threats against a mercenary organization if I am hiring them for the sole purpose that I lack force and threats (to defend my private property).
I'll repeat this one last time: if the mercenaries value my currency, whatever it many be, more than they do their time and I value the time of the mercenaries more than I do my form of currency, then the exchange occurs because it is mutually beneficial.
It isn't providing them very little, it's providing them a mutual trade deal, that they have accepted in our thought experiment.
Yeah, because they cannot use, say, my sports car as some commercial vehicle to take people for joyrides just as you cannot use your neighbour's farmland: it isn't yours. Just because you don't like that my sports car is gathering dust or that your neighbour is growing corn instead of wheat doesn't mean you can just use it: either the state (our current example) or security guards will kick you out for trespassing.
I guess that's why buildings and banks have security guards around the clock.
Yes, because they don't own it. You're acting as if it is a transgression against you because you are not allowed to walk into a private building and use it as you please. It's only a transgression if you can demonstrate your ownership of the building/its facilities, which you cannot. And if you want to be a warlord about it and just conquer the private building to use it at your behest, then that's what the security guards are for.

economic instability is an inherent quality of capitalism
Revolutionary periods rarely are, and yet they are needed.
but they would not, if there was no potential for exchange with 'real' currencies. they can buy their orange juice in BTC because the vendor can, if necessary, get the USD equivalent. A decentralised, non-physical fiat money, more than anything, relies on a real power backing something it can be exchanged with.
No, but you equated trading with gold with trading with BTC as proof that since gold isn't tied to USD(or currencies in general), BTC isn't either. Gold has real value from its material existence, USD has real value from state backing and power (tax). BTC has no real backing power, it's value entirely relies on the current system of exchanges.

It's really a headache arguing with you; this will be my last post, probably. If someone else wants to pick this up feel free.

First, I'll just say that law/title aren't some sort of magical force that exist independently of enforcement.

I honestly wouldn't mind if I wasn't using it.

Get this in your fucking skull. You're extorting the people you're "defending your private property from", not the mercenaries, because you send in the security guards/mercenaries if they don't give you a cut of what they produce, and they wouldn't give you a cut if the security guards/mercenaries weren't there because your property rights DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A BODY TO ENFORCE THEM - in other words, A STATE.

That said, if we look at the relationship between yourself and the mercenaries, what actually do you provide each other? You provide some sort of money to the mercenaries - which you only get because you own this private property, which you only do because you're able to hire them - and they provide you security. What exactly can you do to stop them from thinking it's not in their best interests to take and enforce their property their selves while leaving you out to dry?

they do, the cops. However, it's not resource-efficient to have them on premises the entire time so they only call them when something drastic happens, although there's constantly the understanding that they will be called if anything drastic happens which is just as good as their actual presence.

Oh sure, there absolutely is an ebb and flow. But if you're implying, and I'm not saying you are but this is just preemptive, that there is some sort of nirvana wherein economic instability is non-existent, then you're saying 'either it's all perfect or it fails'.
That's the thing about political radicalism: not everybody agrees with it, or its results.
No, you're missing the point: the trade occurs precisely because it is bitcoin and NOT USD or GBP. There is literally no point in the flow chart where USD comes into play.
They aren't buying everyday groceries with bitcoin, though.
Now that's a separate debate. I don't think that is absolutely true, it is circumstantially true with your grocery bitcoin example.
I never said that because gold is traded with a credit card and is not absolutely dependent on USD or other currencies that this makes bitcoin of the same sheaf.
Pretty sure a main part, if not the main part, of bitcoin's worth is how much of it is in the marketplace and active. Now, it exists and is traded in that marketplace because it has worth, and it just so happens that it is exchanged with other currencies, like USD. I just don't think that this makes it absolutely true that it is dependent upon USD, I think that it can be traded in the event the USD fails so long as it exists in the market and has worth beyond the USD, which I believe it does for many consumers.

I agree entirely.
Well, what's with all the hubbub of 'it isn't being used in this way, ergo the disuse is a transgression against me'. I don't follow this line of reasoning.
Feisty little thing.
Again, you already said that there is no threat of force against you. You said that nobody is pointing a gun at you. There is no extortion occurring just because you have manufactured a false transgression against your being simply because of the disuse of private property. I cannot imagine a world where I am guilty for aggression and extortion because I don't let people use my private property as they please. They are innocent of criminal activity when they act without my consent against things they do not own? It's the exact opposite that occurs in reality, actually.
We've been over this, the 'state' is a governing body with specific legal implications, not just any enforcement of power.
I'm just copy-pasting this now because you seem to not understand a mutually beneficial exchange: if the mercenaries value my currency, whatever it many be, more than they do their time and I value the time of the mercenaries more than I do my form of currency, then the exchange occurs because it is mutually beneficial.
Nope, you can have other forms of income beyond what you are paying to be secured. From the stock market, or from inheritance, for example. Doesn't have to be a plot of farmland if you never sell it.
I'm not sure, why doesn't everybody act this way and destroy all landowners and seize their private property because it isn't used as they want it to be used (which, coincidentally, includes the people who think it isn't being used properly)? I think that usually when that happens, standards of living plummet and people rush to migrate out of that nation.
Also, empathy and that whole 'mutually beneficial relationship' that I've been trying to get you to understand.
No, security guards are not law enforcement officers.

no, but the economic instability should be tied to real, material processes, not finance market fluctuations, essentially the feels of the people that make descisions on financial markets
That's the thing about all politics. Liberalism used to be pretty damn radical.
Except the point that there would be no trade if the BTC had no value which it derives from exchange with 'real' currency.
You argued that since people can trade in gold, not USD, similarly you can trade in BTC, ignoring that gold and btc derive their value differently.
Are you saying that it has inherent value - if you couldn't actually acquire anything concrete in exchange for it it would still be valuable? Because that is essentially what you are arguing, and what your argument relies on. Let's generalise here, it isn't just USD but all exchangeable currencies that give it value, but the reality is still the same - only because there is a real, actual power backing the thing it can be exchanged for it has any value whatsoever.

The economic instability is based on the markets, which are 'real'. What makes you think they aren't? Also, the material that the currencies are traded are 'material', I don't know what you mean. The markets themselves aren't material as a concept, sure, but the goods that are traded are material.
No, not all politics. Moderates are political and are exempt from that judgement.
You don't believe BTC would ever have independent value?
Well, I didn't mean that they were identical in their 'production'. I guess in terms of the exponential difficulty to mine new BTC and the difficulty to literally mine gold as you deplete the resources.
Didn't mean that they were interchangeable in terms of production.
No, it has the value people allow it to have. I'm saying this could happen if the USD doesn't exist anymore.
So I ask again: You don't believe BTC would ever have independent value?

They aren't necessarily related to the real economy ie. actual production and consumption
user, radicals are called radicals because they are the "not everybody agrees with it, or its results" of the present 'moderate' political system. Do you arbitrarily define radicals as exempt from 'everybody'?
Of course not. It has no function except as a means of exchange. In marxist terms it only has exchange-value, no use-value, unlike gold for example. Hell, even non-physical fiat money can have some use-value as an abstraction of cost in accounting of real-world economic resources.
Yes, and people only allow it to have value because it can be exchanged for currencies, for example the USD.

I should add that it only has that utility because it is tied to the real economy via taxes, unlike BTC

But it is what allows for the production to be exchanged: the products that are created are exchanged within a marketplace. It doesn't get any more real or related to production and inevitable consumption than that.
No, anybody can be a radical, most are not and will be, at the very least, hesitant to their approaches. That's what I'm saying.
Ah, I disagree. I believe it can exist independently of any other currency. I don't think its circumstantial trade with USD means that it relies on the USD to exist.
If the USD tanks and everyone flocks to BTC, then it will have value beyond its circumstantial relation to the USD.

market crashes due to financial speculation have nothing to do with the real economy, user
the Dutch tulip boom is the classic example
Everything is radical until it's adopted, then its everyday and commonplace and obvious.
How? What sort of value does currency that can't be exchanged have? Aesthetic?
Not USD specifically but any and all currencies that have 'real' power backing them. If they don't exist or if exchange from BTC to other currencies is blocked or curtailed by whatever means BTC will be worthless play money, like Zimbabwean currency. Or even less than that since it isn't even physical.

But that doesn't mean markets are not real/related to the 'real' (by that, I mean relevant) economy.
Have fun winning over the hearts and minds of the survivors of the perversions of political philosophies you espouse that resulted in the abolition of private property.
It can be exchanged, it doesn't have to be exchanged with another currency, it can become the foundational currency itself.
I didn't mean only USD. Also, BTC is as powerful and valuable as its worth on the market, and this may relate to another currency, but I think BTC can act standalone to function as a main currency itself. That doesn't mean that it can never be used as an intermediary between another currency and a product.

Unfortunately you don't get to redefine the term real economy. Outside of the 'allocation of resources'-function financial markets are just pure capitalist arcanery with no practical purpose. The point of the economy and 'market' in the first place is to facilitate and cater to human needs and their fulfilment, the 'market' has no inherent value.
is this the communism = stalin meme again?
Only if somewhere some relevant country decides to start collecting tax in BTC, which would be insane since they couldn't control the monetary policies at all.

Factory ownership made him class conscious. He saw the working conditions and was horrified.

He just wanted to impress his senpai Karl

Nazbol or Nazsyn.