This study aims to elucidate the significance of the major revision Smith made in Part I of the sixth edition of The Theory of Moral Sentiments; his intention to change Part I, Section III, Chapter III from “Of the Stoical Philosophy” to “Of the Corruption of Our Moral Sentiments,” and the resulting change in his theoretical composition, and other changes in his thinking from the first to the sixth edition. The goal is to comprehend the significance in Smith’s intention to revise, the resulting reformation in theory, and the gradual evolution of his thinking from the first to the sixth edition. First, I clarify the concept of a moralist and the circumstances he refers to as the corruption of moral sentiment following the revision and expansion of The Theory of Moral Sentiments from the first to the sixth edition. Next, we examine the meaning of Smith’s well-known assertion that ‘the road to fortune is often different from the road to virtue,’ and try to understand the exact meaning based on the text. Finally, we examine and identify the reasons for altering the entire section to “Of the Corruption of Our Moral Sentiments” from “Of the Stoical Philosophy.” In the concluding remarks, I argue that the inclusion of “Of the Corruption of Our Moral Sentiments” in the sixth edition does not serve as a “warning” against the “corruption of moral sentiments” clearly reflected the tastes of the middling class about which moralists made such a fuss. It is better to understand that this was due to Smith’s awareness of the coherence of his theory of sympathy in Part I. In other words, we must emphasize the facts; as Smith pointed out in Book V of Wealth of Nations, the problems of oversimplification of workers’ mental attitudes, corruption in the judiciary and politics resulting from extending the division of labor were the pressing matters which the State or the Sovereign had to deal with even after the establishment of ‘obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’

As many scholars have pointed out, a new form of capitalism is emerging — a capitalism which has been referred to as “surveillance capitalism,” “platform capitalism,” “techno-feudalism,” or “rentier capitalism.” Brett Christophers notes that, since the 1970s, capitalism has become increasingly dependent on rent extraction, based on monopolies of land, infrastructure, and intellectual property, among others. The new form of capitalism has further built a monopoly system of platforms, big data, and algorithms within industry itself. Based on these observations, if the mass production and mass consumption of the automobile industry was the model for the Fordist system of capital accumulation in the past, the monopoly of the digital giants is the model for the new system of rent extraction. Over the preceding half century of “secular stagnation,” capitalism has undergone a major structural transformation — at least in “developed countries.” Capitalism has lost the conditions necessary for stimulating the production of surplus value and the accumulation of capital. However, this does not mean a decline in the dominance of capital: this is because capital has weakened the working class through neoliberal restructuring and increased earnings through intensified exploitation and financialization. As such, “rentier capitalism” can be regarded as an extension of this process. Marx did not expect that capitalism could become so powerful despite long-term stagnation in capital accumulation. However, if we interpret Marx’s Capital as a system of economic form determinations, we can find the key to understanding this paradox. In this paper, I examine this new form of capitalism based on Marx’s Capital and the related manuscripts. In so doing, I provide suggestions regarding the future direction of contemporary capitalism.

This study delves into the burgeoning phenomenon of crowdfunding as an innovative financing mechanism in modern capitalism, scrutinizing it from two perspectives: the often overlooked “credit theory of money,” within the Schumpeterian framework and the successful transition from capitalism to socialism. This study will then explore the prospects of the “new capitalism” being discussed domestically and abroad. In view of this, the study poses two research questions and derives answers for both: (1) How is it evaluated from the perspective of Schumpeter’s credit theory and the traditional role of bankers, and what is new about it? (2) How can the state’s involvement in contemporary crowdfunding and innovation be interconnected? The answer to the first question is as follows: modern crowdfunding can be seen as meeting Schumpeter’s criteria for a banking function by linking the quality of information disclosure on crowdfunding platforms with the cumulative experience of the general public. The answer to the second question is as follows: based on recent previous research, there is an increasing possibility of interpreting Schumpeter’s socialism as a cooperative-type economy. This interpretation hinges on the state espousing an entrepreneurial function and the general public contributing to aspects of the banker function.

This paper delves into the future of capitalism from the perspective of Karl Polanyi. While many scholars have drawn on Polanyi’s insights to critique capitalism, particularly focusing on the concept of double movement, they also emphasize the need for seeking alternatives to capitalism to protect society from the adverse effects of unbridled market expansion. However, Polanyi originally conceived the double movement as a tool for explaining 19th-century historical dynamics rather than as a blueprint for shaping the future of our social economy. In the context of Polanyi’s discourse, thinking about post-capitalism leads us to consider the prospect of socialist transformation. In this paper, we undertake an exploration of contemporary capitalism based on Polanyi’s ideas, using the constructs of the double movement and socialist transformation. We discuss new fictitious commodities, behavioural data, cap-and-trade of CO2, and proliferation of knowledge. We also advocate for a socialist transformation that encompasses a democratic movement within the realm of surveillance capitalism, all while taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion on Polanyi’s work presents two possibilities: the extension of the current state of affairs through a double movement and the emergence of a socialist world in which democracy regulates the economy.