El Salvador abandons Bitcoin as legal tender

It's interesting and nice to see how progressive and creative El Salvador has been. Some failures are perfectly understandable when one is willing to try new things. Their approach to crime is another thing that comes to mind that was lambasted and ridiculed by the "international community" and "experts". Yet in the space of a single decade they went from murder capital of the world to safer than New Zealand (in terms of homicide rate), which is just staggering.

I love that they are innovating and experimenting and trying their own things, and don't let the stuffy pompous status quo hold them back.

Note that their official homicide numbers no longer include bodies found in unmarked graves (as of 2021), people killed in conflicts between police and gangs (as of 2022), and people killed in prison. These are arguably reasonable decisions but unless you backfit the old numbers, you don't have the real trend.

I suspect that the trend would be impressive either way, you'd just lose the "safer than New Zealand" line.

This is... a strange and jarring thing to read. My kneejerk response was that yes, they are innovating and experimenting with oppressive and corrupt governance, but that is ultimately uncharitable. A more balanced response is that while you may personally think of Bitcoin as progressive (I can't imagine why) you certainly can't claim that Bukele's El Salvador is progressive. You may like the gang crackdown, you may appreciate the suspension of habeus corpus, but you can't claim that's a progressive position.

> nice to see how progressive and creative El Salvador has been

Alright so let's have a look at these progressive/creative approaches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_El_Salvador

(a) Mass arrests of anyone who merely had a gang tattoo, (b) Jailing of children, (c) Security cameras everywhere, (d) Inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Trashing human rights is always effective but hardly creative nor progressive.

Regardless of whether you think of them as successful or failed, I don't think you can see El Salvador's policies as "progressive".

How is it "progressive" to allow public safety issues to disproportionately impact vulnerable populations?

I don't think "bitcoin" is progressive, bitcoin is a technology. I think the idea of trying a decentralized electronic currency is progressive. Whether they implemented it well or should have seen the problems with using it as a currency is one thing, but in the idea of trying something new sure I think it was good. I don't think it caused grave harm to try.

And I certainly can claim that their policies on crime are progressive. They are prioritizing the rights of the many law abiding people who have a fundamental human right to live unmolested and unterrorized by criminals. I think that is very progressive and quite a radical departure from the status quo. I don't think I have ever heard "human rights advocates" and UN types opine and lament the human rights of people who have to endure this type of criminal society and I think it is brave and progressive to fight for them. I absolutely understand that it has required concessions and weakening of rights in other areas, and I don't say that is a good thing, but everything is a tradeoff right? If they continued conservative status quo the tradeoff would have been other peoples rights continuing to be violated.

Just because it's not "progressive" as exactly defined by an elite ruling class in the "international community" and think-tanks and academia, and the leftist intelligentsia at large, does not mean it is not progress in social reform and improvement for the greater good. To the actual people who have to live in El Salvador, approval for Bukele's reforms are staggering. I'm sure a lot of the "experts" who assured everybody they would never work are upset about it because they have a lot of egg on their face now, but fortunately the country has a bright young progressive leader who cares about the people more than the elitists say.

That’s all well and good until innocent people get caught in the net. How many thousands of young people are worth incarcerating indefinitely and without legal recourse for the benefit of society at large? Would you throw your own child into the pit if it meant that the happiness and safety of your town was ensured? In the extreme, why not just make every crime carry a death penalty? Would that society be perfect by your measure?

(And that’s before we start dissecting the bribery and corruption of those who wield this power.)

Well there's no need to suspect, homicide rates were dropping like a rock before 2021. Perhaps faster than has been achieved by any other social reform on record.

> That’s all well and good until innocent people get caught in the net.

Is your position that no innocent people were convicted of crimes before the reforms, or that innocent people do not get caught in the crimes that have been reduced so dramatically?

> How many thousands of young people are worth incarcerating indefinitely and without legal recourse for the benefit of society?

And how many young people are not killed or maimed or dragged into a life of crime indefinitely and without recourse in the alternative?

As I said, I acknowledge the issues with it, but no social policy is perfect and all social policy is a balance. You can't pull out "human rights" as a trump card to say Bukele's policies are bad or worse than before. Because you are confining and defining human rights in a very narrow specific way, and that does not account for many other rights of many other classes of people.

Human rights of victims of these criminals were being routinely trashed and ignored before Bukele's reforms, so that's just not a trump card. His progressive reforms have significantly improved society for the greater good and has stood up for human rights that were being trampled, it is also against the conservative status quo thinking of how to deal with crime, so it very much fits the dictionary definition of progressive. Just not the elitist status quo definition of the word (ironically, they are conservative by at least some definitions).

a - gang tattoos mean gang involvement. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

b - I'm not sure what you think you're reading but that article points to the scourge of gangs and their impact on children. I only skimmed it but I couldn't see anything in that article about detaining children.

c - So?

d - Gang members in places like El Salvador victimise communities. They are a scourge. I will not accept the humanizing of them - they are parasites. I absolutely support Bukele's policies to rid the country of them. I hope he keeps going.

> it is also against the conservative status quo thinking of how to deal with crime

How are tough on crime policies "against the conservative status quo"?

What would you say to the victims of these gangs?

The word progressive has a real meaning besides the popular figure-of-speech of calling leftist policies "progressive". Progress in anything, including politics, can move in a direction you like or in a direction you don't like. It's still progress.

This is just an intellectually lazy way to dismiss any criticism of policies.

You can care deeply about victims and not believe in a surveillance state or arresting people simply because they look a certain way. History has shown it’s a slippery slope that ends up hurting everyone.

You surely can't be accusing others of being intellectually lazy and using the slippery slope argument in the very same post?

The people who are seen to be the experts and authorities in social theory and practice in their ivory towers in the UN and academia cling to their outdated and falsified ideas of what works and what doesn't and refuse to change or accept new things.

Firstly, they are adamant that "tough on crime" policies do not work, they were adamant that Buekele's reforms would not work. Now sure there are probably ways they may fail and situations where they don't apply, it has now been proven by counter-example that they are wrong. They still refuse to accept it.

They now address their little El Salvador embarrassment by claiming it has caused calamitous violations of "human rights". This is a sneaky tool they use to win a debate and end the conversation, but when you look behind the curtain, really they are the ones who defined what human rights are and what is important for society, and they make no attempt to really weigh any of the multitide of very complicated issues as a whole. They just pick some human rights and some classes of people and say they were violated and that's the end of it. They would have the poor people of El Salvador live with gangs running rampant and murder rates hundreds of times higher than the rich areas of the wealthy countries they live in, and it would be worth it if only it could prevent one accused criminal having their human rights violated. It's just absolutely ludicrous, especially when you see the outcomes of these policies and they're still raging against Bukele for them and refusing to admit they don't have all the answers.

That is why they are conservative. Again, not conservative in their definitions, but conservative according to the dictionary. They hold to their views and work to maintain the status quo in terms of social and governance theories and practices.

Again I don't disagree with having strong individual rights against the justice system, and "tough on crime" policies sure can be pushed where they are not effective for political gain. But it's not black and white, it is many shades and countless inter-related moving parts. Very limited powers of police and very strong rights for accused in a justice system is a wonderful thing to have. In a society stricken by violence and crime and ruled by gangs and on the brink of collapse, it is not always possible to have without violating more rights of more people.

And if El Salvador continues long enough and keeps making progress reducing crime and breaking gangs and lifting people out of generational crime, they will actually eventually would likely to be in a much better position to implement stronger individual rights against the justice system.

What is actually important in a society is how they choose to be governed, their right to self-determination, including what rights they decide should be important and how those should be weighed and traded off among one another. Not some fixed, rigid decrees by an elitist ruling class of mostly foreigners with their lists of rights developed decades ago by and for different countries, missing many rights, and no real framework to make adjustments or make value judgements between conflicting rights, they are just used as a hammer to shut down debate that is awkward for their conservative and outdated views.

A gang tattoo is a uniform. If you wear the uniform of an enemy soldier anywhere in the world, you will probably get arrested or worse.

> History has shown it’s a slippery slope that ends up hurting everyone.

You don't need to look far back into history when you can look at the real world right now. When things are so bad that they can't get worse, there's no point of arguing about a slippery slope.

No, it does not. Progress is positive. The word you are thinking of is change. Change can take you in any direction, even though the left also likes that word.

OK so you didn't need to say all that.

Saying you meant conservative in the sense that it's the opposite of radical, rather than conservative as in right-wing politics, would have sufficed.

Anyway, Bukele's treatment of the gang situation in El Salvadore can simultaneously be a flagrant violation of human rights while also being an effective measure to curtail untenable levels of gang violence.

I'm glad El Salvadore is safer. I don't love how Bukele handled things. And I don't know that I'd necessarily say he made the wrong call either; the net effect may be overwhelmingly positive for the vast majority of El Salvadorians.

Still, I don't think leaving people to rot in incredibly inhumane jails, without proper course for appeal, or the possibility of rehabilitation is humane. His handling of the situation has certainly made it more difficult if not impossible to determine innocence, or just sentencing for those who may have had very little criminal involvement prior to the emergency mobilization of El Salvador's police and military forces.

And it's certainly created more corruption in the "official" system with regards to respect for El Salvadorian and/or international laws, as is common with dictatorships. Corruption which cements his dictatorship with an iron fist while reigning un-checked.

I'm not convinced this iron fist move was the only answer either, but can at least accept the possibility that it was the only appropriate response to extreme level of gang violence they were facing.

> How many thousands of young people are worth incarcerating indefinitely and without legal recourse for the benefit of society at large?

You can actually do the math for that. If the number of innocent people harmed by the gangs is more than the number of innocent people caught in the legal cross-fire then it is worth it.

CNN says Secretary Rubio just struck a deal with Bukele to accept deportees from the United States regardless of nationality, including US citizens, as long as we pay to house them in his prison.

> OK so you didn't need to say all that.

I'll take that as a "thank you" :)

> Saying you meant conservative in the sense that it's the opposite of radical, rather than conservative as in right-wing politics, would have sufficed.

Yes I did, I did try to say that in the comment you replied to but on re-reading it could have been clearer and was probably a bit snarky.

> Anyway, Bukele's treatment of the gang situation in El Salvadore can simultaneously be a flagrant violation of human rights while also being an effective measure to curtail untenable levels of gang violence.

It can be that, but the previous government's treatment of the gang situation in El Salvadore be a flagrant violation of human rights of all the citizens who had been affected by crime and violence. The suffering endured by those people wasn't humane. That's the problem, right? I can see it's not a black and white situation, can you? Can you name a single "progressive" policy that has zero downsides, costs, unintended consequences, etc? No, on social scales and government policy, everything is a big mess of chaotic cause and effect and good and bad and statistical outcomes, so picking a narrow class of human rights for one class of people in a whole society and say "those are getting worse therefore it can't be progressive" is really reductionist and not even true because in the same way you can probably rule out anything being progressive.

I'm not going to respond to your points one by one because yet again I add the disclaimer that I think it is terrible things got so bad they came to such measures, and maybe not all measures were exactly right. But what is clear is that it is a bold and brave social reform that went against status quo and has been extraordinarily successful in restoring and defending human rights for many, and in many ways improving society for the better, for a huge majority of citizens. Safe to call it progressive, but really call it whatever you like I guess, but a flagrant violation of human rights I think lacks some understanding or nuance of the reality of the situation there.

gangs are a symptom just like drug abuse, which they are also entwined with. striking out at gangs without addressing the issues motivating people to join them is just punishing poverty on both ends. the state has let you down, you feel the need to take survival into your own hands, and then are punished for that.

by no means am i excusing the violence that gang perpetuate, but i am unconvinced that enough people simply want to live the gangster lifestyle that gangs can sustain themselves outside situations of extreme poverty.

They just offered to accept any criminal of any nationality (including American citizens) from the USA for a fee. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/us/politics/el-salvador-p... It's creative but hard to see as progressive, importing the idea of a for profit prison system from the USA.

Yes I am certain that not everything El Salvador does is progressive, even before reading this link.

Some people called Obama progressive and he definitely helped destroy Libya and Syria, ordered the extrajudicial execution of a US citizen under presidential immunity, droned poor brown people living on the other side of the planet, let Citi group pick his cabinet, etc. Nevertheless, the progressive things that Obama did do were still progressive.

They're deporting US citizens? How is that even legal?

I’m really not a tough on crime guy but I agree with everything you’re saying, I do just worry that if Buekele is ousted that another leader could be elected who uses the same heavy hand to lock up more than just criminals.

Isn’t this what caused the gang problem in the first place in El Salvador? I’m no expert but that was my understanding.

El Salvador is a gang-infested shithole because US interventionists backed those who would later lead gangs to stop a left-wing revolution. The Salvadoran government often targeted civilians, and massacred peaceful protestors. Then after the civil war, the same US-backed mercenaries and soldiers who had engaged in massacres and violence came back home, they employed the same terror techniques to build up the gangs and gain power for themselves, exploiting all the displaced peoples, especially the Lost Children of Central America who were kidnapped and raised in the gangs.

Is Omelas "progressive"?

Bukele has emprisoned a large part of the population for the rest of their life in concentration camps.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250128-no-way-out-gr...

If he was killing them directly in gas chambers instead of letting them rot in prison, the population would be as safe, if not safer, forever.

Would that still be "progressive" for you?

Would you have supported Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" too, at the time? Or sterilizing poor people? I mean, those are perfectly logical suggestions that would work, wouldn't they?

What's your point?

That's what the usa did to the entire south and middle America.

> El Salvador is a gang-infested shithole

Far less so now, because they refused to listen to the dogma preached from these experts and institutions (significantly coming from those associated with or funded by the US), about how they should run their country.

> Trashing human rights is always effective

Hardly. What made Bukele's presidency impressive is that many other governments had tried the "mano dura" approach before, but he was the first one to make it work, and nobody is sure why. There's evidence even he didn't expect it to work that well.

Progress is positive as in forward, which is not exclusive for any political leaning.

There are alternative paths one could take to address society's ills.

I'm saying Bukele's policies aren't progressive. Furthermore, he doesn't consider them progressive. His allies in the Latin American ultra right wing don't consider them progressive. "Progressive" to them is an insult.

That assumes a lot, most importantly that the harm is limited to "innocent person in prison" rather than, "Government has the power to throw anyone it wants into prison, effectively disappearing them." The history of these sort of measures is a history of a slide into something worse than whatever was being solved in the first place.

Let's be 100% clear on this

Assad and Ghadaffi destroyed Syria and Lybia respectively being asshole dictators that caused revolutions and that attempted to stay in power by claiming over mountains of dead Syrians and Lybians. The west didn't interfere much in Syria so Assad was able to stay in power a while longer and kill many more of his own citizens. The west messed up the post revolution period but letting Gaddafi do what he wanted would have lead to a worse situation

El Salvador is going to keep them in prisons, not just let them loose.

That is not what is happening. The agreement is to use El Salvadorian prisons instead of US prisons for prisoners. El Salvador said they would be willing to accept any prisoner, regardless of nationality. The US citizens would not be deported, but imprisoned in another country. However, it is not clear if the US will use El Salvadoran prisons for US citizens, only foreigners or not at all.

That's deportation.

Let me be clear, folks. Lots of people contributed to their destruction, and Obama was one of them. One of the major players involved in those messes.

The definition according to Google is

> the action of deporting a foreigner from a country.

A citizen would obviously not be deported.

Forcing someone out of a country is deportation. Maybe not in your dictionary, but in reality.

Tell me, when in history has the US sent its citizens to overseas prisons?

I literally just pulled the first definition. It is not my dictionary, but Google's. If you don't like the first definition that comes up, that is on you, not me.

Second, it is not even clear that any US citizens will be shipped off. Bukele is just offering it and Trump said he isn't sure if it will happen.

Third, US citizens are able to serve their sentence in a foreign country if they so choose since 1977 [1]. Obviously this situation is not the same, but the US does send its citizens to foreign prisons sometimes.

[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...

These people have made the affirmative choice to join gangs that terrorize law abiding citizens. Their choke hold on El Salvador has prevented others from living safe, prosperous lives (not to mention the countless people they've killed). Removing them from society is progress. The amount of utils gained by the large majority far outweighs those lost by these criminals. And frankly, it's a false equivalence anyway bc they're, y'know, criminals.

> Would you have supported Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" too, at the time? Or sterilizing poor people? I mean, those are perfectly logical suggestions that would work, wouldn't they?

You have erected a startling number of straw men in your response. I'll ignore them.

We should do things that both work and benefit society. We should not do things that don't work. Here's a short an non-exhaustive list of "progressive" things that don't work: restorative justice, tolerating crime, allowing the destruction of the commons by the mentally ill and addicted, allowing criminals to be free and wreck society due to legal technicalities, bureaucracy, and corruption.

And thus, as I wrote previously, the word "progressive" seems to have fully inverted. Things that enable or create progress are called regressive, while things that are actually regressive and destructure are called progressive.