The aim of this paper is to indicate the significance of normative theory to the development of the political economy. It is necessary to accept the achievements of critical economics other than Marxian economics for the progress in the political economy. However, as the range of the political economy spreads, the identity of the political economy has to be clear so that it can remain consistent. One of the main factors in this identity is normative theory, the content of which is socialism. So far, normative theory has been promoted by liberalism, and socialist normative theory has been inactive. However, it has increasingly been influenced by analytical Marxism since the 1980's. Socialist normative theory is now under construction. I have examined the orientation of this theory in comparison with utilitarianism, libertarianism, egalitarian liberalism, communitarianism, ecology, and feminism. The normative idea of socialism succeeds the contribution of liberalism and capitalism, and furthermore, it seeks a community that coexists with nature, while avoiding a reaction to naturalism or conservatism. It also looks for a society that truly realizes the ideas of liberty, equality, and community. What is the relationship between socialist normative theory and the political economy? Historical materialism was the foundation of Marxian economics, and I think it will be the same with the political economy. According to historical materialism, normative values are determined by the economic structure. Therefore, it seems that normative theory, which pursues non-historical normative truth, contradicts historical materialism. However, I have argued that universal values exist, which can be consistent with the idea that normative values are determined by the economic structure at different times. It is true that traditional Marxism tended to make little of normative theory because it stressed that there exist two historical trends. One is the growth of an organized working class as the agent for socialist revolution. The other is the trend that normative values will become less important as limitless abundance will be achieved by the increase in productive forces. In reality, however, we can no longer presuppose these two trends. Therefore, normative theory becomes essential for the purpose of the realization of socialism. With this understanding, I have explained the relationship between historical materialism and the normative values central to socialism such as freedom, equality, and community. As for liberty, traditional Marxism thought that perfect liberty could be realized by the advent of a communist society, where limitless abundance will be attained. However, we are living in a time of ecological crisis, so the liberty that should be sought for is not a perfect one, but a controlled one. The idea of equality itself is a timeless normative value. However, this idea has different implications at different times. For example, analytical Marxists showed that the forms of exploitation and class have changed throughout history. This is one way to synthesize historical materialism and normative theory. At present, our interests are changing from possession to existence, and a caring society that overcomes the defects of a market economy and state regulation is coming. This means that we are entering a historical era of communism in which our fundamental needs for care can be fulfilled. Recently, various theories of alternative societies, which realize the idea of socialism, have been presented. The political economy should be engaged in the tasks that show us how to attain such societies by reforming the capitalist economy. Traditional Marxism has devoted itself to criticizing the capitalist economy and the economics that supports it. The new political economy should not only criticize them, but also positively create a vision of alternative societies that can realize the socialist idea and the way to attain them.

View full abstract

This paper sets out the methodological foundation to analyze the contemporary capitalism from the point of view of Marxian Economics. The main argument starts off the dissociation between Marx's economics and its development in twenty century, which reveal the merit of Marxian economics. Next the characteristic of today's capitalism is reexamined, which show us the distinguished stage in capitalist development of Globalism from that of Imperialism. Thus we are able to develop the transfiguration approach that makes it possible to theorize the multi-phases of capitalism.

View full abstract

Capitalism at the close of the 20th century Since 1980s all the world has been undergoing the predominance of neo-liberalism, which encourages economy to be more active by reducing government goverment's s interventions and leaving market-mechanism to take its own course. By that time the economy had come to a deadlock in which expansion of market was facing the limit and economic growth had begun to slow down so much that economic competition would, by nature, simply "competition for survival". This was to be followed by the appearance of raw logic of severe competition in both economy and politics. Wedged by the economic deadlock and decrease in investment opportunities, capitals had been wandering to seek chances of higher earnings. All this triggered off speculative characteristics. With the rise of neo-liberalism toward the end of last century were seen such phenomena as Casino Capitalism, increase in socio-economic instability, expansion of income differentials, and enhancement of oligopoly. Capitalism at the close of the 20^<th> century was to driven by indiscreet consumption, especially excessive consumption in America. Features of the 21^<st> century : Problem and Prospects Gaps between the logic of private firms and that of human society have been rapidly widening. There are more and more bankruptcies, jobless people, instability of employment, crises of social security systems, growing gaps between the rich and poor, and serious global environmental problems. All this not only remains within a country but goes beyond it as well. Should this keep going, our society will suffer serious crises in this century. The fundamental problem to be settled in this century is to probe such a socio-economic system as will be sustainable regardless of economic growth. For a system of the sort, plans should be made based on the reason of humans and control be set to realize them. It is not how market rationally functions but how the logic of market is suppressed and counter logic is ensured in the socio-economic system, that is the inevitable question of the 21^<st> century.

View full abstract

This paper critically deals with an Analytical Marxian Professor Yoshihara's two critiques against the Fundamental Marxian Theorem. One is the possibility of positive profit without positive exploitation, under the condition of joint production and laborer's consumption choice. The other is so-called Generalized Commodity Exploitation Theorem, which claims value and exploitaion concept can be defined for all commodities not only for labor and thus positive profit is identical with exploitation of any commodity not only of labor. I shall show the former demonstration is wrong because it needs negative net production. If we limit net production to be non-negative and permit disposal, then the exploitation of his case turns to be positive. To answer the latter critique, we shall examine the dual system of the value equations and their corresponding optimization problem or utility function. Then we can confirm that if we define net production as the commodities disposable for human being or if we define utility function as that of human being, then the value concept consistent with the presupposition must be labor value and exploitaion concept must be that of labor.

View full abstract

In the theory of commodity money, money is determined as commodity. This prescription, 'money is commodity', entails that even if the 'money' is no longer money, the 'money' is still commodity. But if we strip its function from today's 'money', it is no longer commodity. After the stripping, we get a mere paper, poor metal and the number written on bankbook. From this point, the persuasion of the theory of commodity money is simply questioned. But the theory of commodity money has two contents. One is to consider about essence of money. Another is to consider about reason for existence of money. The question about the theory of commodity money is turned to consideration about the essence of money. In general opinion, this question is the question against metallism. Another content of this theory, consideration about reason for existence of money, treats of logical generation of money. It insists that money generates spontaneously in the market. In this logic, the generation of money is considered from the perspective of exchange itself. As a result, we get commodity money, as it were, automatically. But this prescription, 'money is commodity', is different from the prescription, 'money is commodity', which is drawn from the consideration about essence of money. Obviously these two prescriptions are same phrase. But the content of these prescriptions are different. The matter is how we interpret these same and different prescriptions. In this paper, I consider the theory of commodity money from the viewpoint of reason for existence of money. And this theme is considered as generation of money. In this framework, as I have already mentioned, certain commodity becomes money automatically. But it does not mean that the essence of money is commodity. The theory of commodity money, as reason for existence of money, is the description of human nature, which is given conditions of private property and social division of labor. If say in other words, it describes principle of market. In other theory, 'contract' is the moment of reason for existence of money. It insists that money is the external existence of market. So, money is not able to generate from exchange itself. From this point, this theory requests the power of generating money for 'contract'. In this paper, I try to unify with this theory and the theory of commodity money. It is a trial to unify with internal generation of money and external generation of money. I base internal generation on external generation. It comes from interest to the awareness of real economic phenomenon. If there is the principle behind various economic phenomena, we will be able to comprehend them on the basis of the principle. We should be able to grasp real economy as an amalgam the principle and factors, which bring various phenomena. On this hypothesis, in this paper, I aim to consider influence of the principle upon reason for existence of money.

View full abstract

This article reviews a theory of value form argued by Mr.Aoki Kohei. Section I, we try to clarify Mr.Aoki's complicated discussion about the theories of value form and of exchange process considered by Marx and Uno Kozo. At first, in "Estimation of the theories of value form and of exchange process", we survey Mr.Aoki's view upon preceding theorists. Marx's theory of value form premised the dogma of labor value. On the contrary, Uno reconstituted the theory of value form without the dogma of labor value. But on the other hand, he reduced the logic of the world of "commodity language" in the theory of value form into the logic of a world of "human language" in the theory of exchange process. Mr.Aoki estimates that point negative. Secondly,in "On desire of commodity <own>ers", we survey Mr.Aoki's argument almost depending on the discussion of Mr.Takumi Mitsuhiko that claims the asymmetry between relative value form and equivalent form can be explained without desire of commodity owners. Thirdly,in "Ideal expression of value and value realization carried through purchases", we inspect Mr.Aoki's view about the issues posed by Uno concerned with a desire of commodity owners, and concerned with a relationship between value expression only in owners' ideas and value realization carried through its real purchases.Then a plot of Mr.Aoki's theory of value form is clarified. It is the theory of value form that is completely non personal-subjective and structuralistic, that is without both Marx's "labor subject" and Uno's "own subject". Fourthly, in "The theory of value form as a make-up theory of private propriet(or)", we survey his theory that a task of the theory of value form is investigation of such a structural mechanism that commodity possesion is converted into private property by purchasing commodity with money. Section II "About the conversion of possession into private property", we inspect Mr, Aoki's arguments critically surveyed in section I. Firstly, in "Doubts about the make-up theory of private propriet<or> by Mr.Aoki", we inspect some points. (1)Whether is money merely possessed or privately owned that belonged to whom purchased commodity with it ? At the beginning if money is privately owned, where and how did it come into effect such a 'right' title? (2)As a evidence of his argument, Mr.Aoki mentions 'rule of public confidence', that is secured by civil law in every country. But it is a historically formed institution in England during 13c and 16c. So it has no relation to such a logic that private property is formed by purchasing with money. Secondly, in "On 'dual Marx' about the theory of property", we reexamine his arbitrary interpretation textually. He claims that there was 'Marx as a liberal' and 'Marx as a communitarian'. His interpretation about 'dual Marx' leads his argument of theory of value form to go round and round and get nowhere. SectionIII "Substitute for conclusion; direction of the theory of exchange process and value form", firstly in "Suggestion from Mr.Aoki's theory of value form", we reconfirm some acceptable points in his arguments. Secondly in "Direction of the theory of exchange process and value form", we give outlines of reconstitution plan on the explanation of exchange process and of value form. Marx and Uno had multiplex problematics. So we must resolve their complexes and totally reconstitute them. This reconstitution involves also both methodlogies suitable to each occasion: behavioristic approach and structuralistic approach.

View full abstract

Recent political economy has put stress upon the significance of cash inflow through return payment as the bases of the banking business. However, the role that reserve as bank's own capital plays in bank credit should not be ignored. Even if social idle-money is centered on the bank as deposit, and major part of the bank capital is advanced on the costs of circulation related to monetary phenomena, the proportion of the bank capital in reserve cannot become zero. Credit system makes no contribution to the bank's need for equity capital and this limit has to be cleared by other kind of market organization : capital market.

View full abstract