ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That article Robert S found isn’t that good. Mao is quoted as a dialectical materialist philosopher about the difference between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. According to the author, the difference between Marxism and one school of CRT is over whether the contradiction between the white working class and the black working class is antagonistic or non-antagonistic.
What the article seems to be saying is that there is a difference between Maoism and CRT. No doubt, but who cares?
Obviously, from a genuinely socialist point of view, if CRT is saying that there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest between white and black workers they are wrong and preaching dangerous racist nonsense. But is there are contradiction between these two sections of the working class anyway?
I see that that Advertising Authority has banned an advert for this sort of thing by Arsenal Football Club Plc as being a sort of scam.
So we are discussing here for once something they are also discussing down the pub.
BD, hope you haven’t been taken in.
This Wikipedia entry about “non-fungible tokens” throws some useful light on the subject we are discussing here.
I suppose it might be interesting to record what Marx had to say on this, even if he was only expressing a commonly observed fact. Here are some extracts on the nature of stocks and shares from chapters 29 and 30 of volume 3 of Capital:
“The stocks of railways, mines, navigation companies, and the like, represent actual capital, namely, the capital invested and functioning in such enterprises, or the amount of money advanced by the stockholders for the purpose of being used as capital in such enterprises. This does not preclude the possibility that these may represent pure swindle. But this capital does not exist twice, once as the capital-value of titles of ownership (stocks) on the one hand and on the other hand as the actual capital invested, or to be invested, in those enterprises. It exists only in the latter form, and a share of stock is merely a title of ownership to a corresponding portion of the surplus-value to be realised by it.”
“The independent movement of the value of these titles of ownership, not only of government bonds but also of stocks, adds weight to the illusion that they constitute real capital alongside of the capital or claim to which they may have title. For they become commodities, whose price has its own characteristic movements and is established in its own way. Their market-value is determined differently from their nominal value, without any change in the value (even though the expansion may change) of the actual capital. On the one hand, their market-value fluctuates with the amount and reliability of the proceeds to which they afford legal title. If the nominal value of a share of stock, that is, the invested sum originally represented by this share, is £100, and the enterprise pays 10% instead of 5%, then its market-value, everything else remaining equal, rises to £200, as long as the rate of interest is 5%, for when capitalised at 5%, it now represents a fictitious capital of £200. Whoever buys it for £200 receives a revenue of 5% on this investment of capital. The converse is true when the proceeds from the enterprise diminish. The market-value of this paper is in part speculative, since it is determined not only by the actual income, but also by the anticipated income, which is calculated in advance.”
“Titles of ownership to public works, railways, mines, etc., are indeed, as we have also seen, titles to real capital. But they do not place this capital at one’s disposal. It is not subject to withdrawal. They merely convey legal claims to a portion of the surplus-value to be produced by it. But these titles likewise become paper duplicates of the real capital; it is as though a bill of lading were to acquire a value separate from the cargo, both concomitantly and simultaneously with it. They come to nominally represent non-existent capital. For the real capital exists side by side with them and does not change hands as a result of the transfer of these duplicates from one person to another. They assume the form of interest-bearing capital, not only because they guarantee a certain income, but also because, through their sale, their repayment as capital-values can be obtained. To the extent that the accumulation of this paper expresses the accumulation of railways, mines, steamships, etc., to that extent does it express the extension of the actual reproduction process — just as the extension of, for example, a tax list on movable property indicates the expansion of this property. But as duplicates which are themselves objects of transactions as commodities, and thus able to circulate as capital-values, they are illusory, and their value may fall or rise quite independently of the movement of value of the real capital for which they are titles.”
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.
