In a world where cash transactions are slowly giving way to digital payments, physical currency remains a powerful symbol of state authority. It is adorned with the faces of national leaders, historical figures, and patriotic motifs, serving as both a medium of exchange and an instrument of ideological representation. Yet, for some, banknotes have become more than just money; they have transformed into a canvas for protest. Across social media, particularly in groups like Daitove on Facebook, activists are posting images of banknotes inscribed with the phrase: “Freedom to political prisoners.”
Defacing or Defying?
The act of writing on currency has a long history, straddling the line between defacement and defiance. From the countercultural messages of the 1960s to subversive graffiti in authoritarian regimes, the financial system has always been an arena of political struggle. Writing a protest slogan on a banknote is an act of subversion precisely because money is a state-controlled object, yet it circulates freely, slipping from hand to hand, crossing borders, and infiltrating every level of society. Unlike social media posts, which can be censored or deleted, physical money remains in circulation, carrying its message like a secret pamphlet passed through invisible networks.
A Protest Beyond the Algorithmic Eye
In an age where digital surveillance is omnipresent, activists are seeking alternative forms of resistance that evade algorithmic control. Social media platforms can suppress or shadowban political content, and authoritarian governments can monitor online dissent. However, writing on cash bypasses these digital controls. A marked banknote exists outside of cyberspace, eluding bots and firewalls, becoming an undetectable agent of protest that remains effective for as long as it remains in circulation.
As one user, Diana Burnadze, noted in a Facebook post: “I wrote this on every bill I could find in the cash register.” Another user commented wryly: “I think we’ll transition to digital money soon. The government will ban this.”
This humorous but sharp observation points to a deeper concern: the potential disappearance of cash as a means of unmonitored exchange. Digital payments, while convenient, leave an indelible trail, allowing governments and corporations to track financial activity. Cash, on the other hand, retains a degree of anonymity, making it a more subversive tool for dissent.
From Counterculture to Covert Resistance
Historically, money has often been co-opted for political messaging. During the Second World War, anti-Nazi activists in occupied Europe stamped “Freedom!” and “Resist!” onto banknotes, ensuring their messages circulated beyond their immediate circles. In 1980s Argentina, during the military dictatorship, activists wrote the names of the disappeared on peso notes, turning a financial instrument into a memorial of state violence. Similar tactics were used during the 2019 Hong Kong protests, where pro-democracy messages were scrawled onto banknotes before being spent in everyday transactions.
During the Russian Revolution of 1917, anti-Bolshevik forces defaced banknotes with messages denouncing Lenin and his policies, using the ruble as a battleground for ideological warfare. Likewise, in Francoist Spain, dissidents wrote slogans on pesetas to spread underground resistance against the dictatorship. In the United States during the Vietnam War, some activists wrote anti-war slogans on dollar bills, ensuring their opposition reached unsuspecting individuals.
In Zimbabwe, during the economic collapse of the 2000s, hyperinflation turned banknotes into political statements. Citizens stamped and scribbled anti-government messages on trillion-dollar bills, an act of both protest and dark humor in the face of economic disaster. The phenomenon was similar in Venezuela, where the devaluation of the bolívar led people to use currency as a medium for protest, writing criticisms of Nicolás Maduro’s government directly onto nearly worthless notes.
Even earlier, during the French Revolution, political propaganda was spread through the inscription of radical slogans on assignats, the paper money issued by the revolutionary government. These messages called for liberty and equality, reflecting the ideological fervor of the time and demonstrating how financial instruments could serve as tools for mass mobilization.
Georgia’s current wave of protest inscriptions echoes these past movements, but also underscores a tension between physical and digital resistance. As societies move toward cashless economies, the disappearance of paper money could mark the loss of an important grassroots tool for dissent.
Can the State Control the Narrative on Cash?
Despite government attempts to regulate or discourage writing on money, such acts of resistance persist. Legally, many countries consider defacing currency to be an offense, yet enforcement is inconsistent. The effectiveness of this form of protest lies precisely in its ordinariness: a banknote with a handwritten message is easy to miss, yet once noticed, it cannot be unseen.
Moreover, this movement raises larger philosophical and sociological questions: To whom does money belong once it is in circulation? If a state issues currency as legal tender, but citizens can alter it with political messages, does the very nature of ownership shift? Does a protest message on a banknote alter the social contract between the issuer (the state) and the user (the people)?
The Future of Financial Dissent
As digital transactions become the norm, the power of physical currency as a vehicle for protest may diminish. Yet, this only pushes dissenters to seek new means of resistance. Perhaps, as that Facebook user joked, the government will move to ban cash to suppress such subversive messages. But history suggests that dissent always finds a way—whether through anonymous cryptocurrency transactions, alternative currencies, or new forms of symbolic protest.
The act of writing “Freedom to political prisoners” on a banknote is a small but potent reminder that even within systems designed for control, there remain cracks through which defiance can slip. The question remains: how long will such cracks exist, and what new forms of financial resistance will emerge as the physical fades into the digital?
By Ivan Nechaev
