ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, stocks are “shares” that bring in a fixed income but that does not mean that their price does not change. They too are bought and sold. In fact, the fixed income is a key factor influencing their price especially when the general rate of interest changes.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to compare things in the “metaverse” with shares as the same separation exists between something and its representation, with the representation being subject to buying and selling apart from what is represents. In fact the distinction is clearer as in many cases what it represents can also be bought and sold and quite independently.
It’s all to do with speculation of course, in the case of digital representations not for a future income stream but for a capital gain.
I think it is a bit of a scam actually, promoted by dealers who exchange fiat money for cryptocurrencies and the other way round. You have to pay for your digital representation in a crytocurrency and, if you haven’t any, you have to convert fiat money into it. Naturally the dealers take a commission on this. The same if you want to sell it, to realise any capital gain and use it to buy things in the non-digital world. Again the dealer takes a cut as their commission.
The whole thing is a also misuse of blockchain technology. But, then, what do you expect under capitalism.
Say a new company is starting from scratch and needs £100,000 to set up some business activity and that this is raised by selling shares. The money so obtained is then spent on buying the physical assets needed to carry out the business activity. The £100,000 now exists in the form of these.
The shares will still have a nominal value of £100,000 and entitle their owner to a share of future profits (as well as to a share of the disposal of the physical assets). It is as a claim on future profits that they are bought and sold on stock exchanges. Their total price will normally be greater than £100,000 and their individual price is a sum obtained by capitalising an expected future income stream.
The price of a share is different from the value of the physical assets. These are two different things. Otherwise this would be a case of having your cake and eating it — spending some money and still being able to use it.
Well, yes, what’s traded on stock exchanges is not the tangible assets of a company (its buildings, machinery, computer system, etc). It’s pieces of paper entitling the owner to a future income stream from the profits a company is expected to make. In the case of government bonds it’s a piece of paper entitling the owner to a future stream of income from taxation.
The future income stream is of course non-existent (or not-yet-existent) but the pieces of paper entitling the owner to a future income, if it materialises (!), do exist — as pieces of paper.
But it is advisable to distinguish the pieces of paper and the future income stream as if a company goes under or a government is overthrown then these pieces of paper become worthless, though I believe Tsarist government bonds made useful lampshades.
I thought that the SLP of America used to call Russia “industrial feudalism”.
I never understood why they were reluctant to call it a form of capitalism. Maybe because at one time they also thought it might be some sort of “proletarian state”.
A 53 percent turnout with some 40,000 votes cast suggests an electorate of over 80,000. I don’t know the electoral system in Seattle but I would conclude that it was not just the electors who took part in the election she won that were voting in this recall vote but a wider electorate. Which of course would not be democratic or at least not a true recall vote. It would be an attempt by opponents to overturn an election result.
Now a stupid Tory MP has accused the Chief Medical Officer of wanting to impose a “socialist state”.
Where do they drag these people up from?
A comrade who has skimmed through Tyner’s article says that it
“Argues that that use of money was suspended for a while, rather than money being abolished. Supposedly a hybrid of state capitalism and non-market socialism, with emphasis on exporting rice for profit. The author does say that Marx wanted a moneyless classless stateless society.”
Maybe we will mention it in the Socialist Standard.
I think a war is like a strike (or vice versa) — the best war like the best strike is the one that doesn’t need to take place because the threat is enough.
China has threatened Russia with sanctions if it invades Ukraine? That doesn’t sound right. Are you sure?
A comrade has sent in this leaflet with the comment: This is from the Young [Sic]ialists’ programme for the Xmas bazaar. As usual, they con local shops to donate.
That reminds me. Jack Mosse has replied to our invitation to debate saying he would prefer something less confrontational than a set-piece debate between opposing speakers. We should be able to accommodate on this but the new covid restrictions probably rule out any meeting for the time being.
Also the new Irish state used the same currency as the rest of the British Isles and even decimalised in 1971 at the same time as the UK. It was only later in the 1970s that the Irish pound came to differ from the UK one.
Some Irish nationalists and republicans had long recognised that the only way an Irish state could become independent of the England was to be come dependent on some other big state, the only candidate being Germany. Which was finally consolidated when Ireland joined the Euro in 1999 while the UK stayed out.
Actually it is obvious that when the socialist movement gets off the ground a revolutionary trade union will too (whether from scratch or from transforming the existing unions or splitting from them). But today it is far too early to form one or expect one to emerge because they are so few workers who want the classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society that socialism will be. In that interview the person interviewed says that his CNT in Spain has about 5,000 members. I can’t imagine that the IWW in Britain has even half that number.
This motion proposed at a meeting of Party members in 1906 shows a widely held view at the time:
“Urges its members, while not neglecting their ‘first duty,’ to advocate the formation of an industrial organisation based upon the irreconcilable antagonism between the capitalist class and the working class, and having as its object the taking over and adminstering of the means of wealth production ; such industrial organisation to be affiliated to or working in complete unison with The Socialist Party, thus ensuring that the class struggle shall be waged as effectively as possible on both the industrial and political fields.”
It would have been premature then (and was accepted by the Party) as it is today, but the logic can’t be challenged, even if makes the anarcho-syndicalist’s hair stand on end. A revolutionary socialist trade union would have to be linked somehow to the socialist political party for the reason stated.
I read that interview and see that, in the circles involved, “reformism” means becoming more like an ordinary trade Union. The ironic thing is that becoming more like an ordinary trade union makes them of more use to workers and so more acceptable from our point of view. Not that we regard the struggle over wages and working conditions, even through the existing unions, as “reformist” but as the defensive aspect of the class struggle.
I can see why they regard this as “reformist” as they think that unions should be revolutionary in the sense of aiming to overthrow capitalism. But capitalism could never be overthrown by economic action alone. That requires political action but they reject that.
I note also that some of them are also members of the ordinary unions and that some hold elected office in them at local level. I think the IWW do too (not sure though). Nothing wrong with that. Some of our members do too. Even done it myself.
