Understanding market must be understanding capitalism, because market system is misunderstood as capitalism by many Marxists. However, capitalism can be defined without using the category of market as follows: First, capitalism is a society in which we use machines, and here, quality and quantity of products are determined not by worker's skill but by quality and quantity of machines, and workers become unskilled and just affixes. And the most important change from the feudalist system was their weak bargaining power against capitalists, because now capitalists can gather unskilled workers easily from labor market. Now, anyone in labor market can substitute workers in their factories. Therefore, under this condition, workers' wages become lower and profits become higher, and most part of profits are used reinvestment and sizes of machines become larger. Here, because we assumed that sizes of machines determine sizes of products after the industrial revolution, this re-investment means economic development. That is, the capitalist way of economic development! In this explaining, we can understand why we need capitalism after the industrial revolution where machines became the most important factors of production, and in this sense, this understanding is very materialistic and historical. This is the reason why our understanding has to be regarded as a part of Marxist theory. Therefore, our problem is whether market is needed for this capitalism or not. Of course, I also think that market sometimes enforces workers to work hard to avoid their companies' bankruptcy. It is true and the reason why we are against markets now. However, Stalin and Mao also realized a rapid capital accumulation without using market system, and it also can be understood as a kind of capitalist development based on the above framework. In this sense, market is not needed for the definition of capitalism. In addition, 'private ownership' is not needed for this by the same reason. One more topic related to this problem is the relationship between managers and workers in the post-capitalist era, if we don't need nationalization of the private enterprises, and in this sense, we put importance on the present trend of disclosure of inner information of enterprises. Of course, still now this disclosure is not sufficient to be controlled by the public, but if it will become sufficient and effective, we can understand it is like a public ownership, because we can control them. Before, prof. Okishio said that the nature of ownership is who has the right of decision-making, and in this sense, such control by the public can be understood as a kind of public ownership. I know that this new Marxism is not its original one and still now is not accepted by the orthodoxy. However, we cannot deny that this is a kind of historical materialism, and in this sense, it belong to the tradition of Marxism. In this paper, we also explained that our way to avoid 'over-accumulation' and terminate class division is not through governmental intervention but through stock market. However, in the nature, it is same as Marx's way, and completely different from the ways of social democrat and trade unionism because they don't terminate class division itself.

View full abstract

It is often said that examining which socioeconomic system is superior, capitalism or socialism, is irrelevant since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Some critics have declared, "Capitalism finally won!" Is it true that we can only now select a certain type of capitalism? Not necessarily. We understand that a dichotomy such as market economy vs. planned economy is inappropriate to the study of contemporary economies. Still, it is important to re-consider the working of the market as a whole and evaluate its potential with an open mind. Here we discuss a theoretically fundamental question: what should be the role of the market? The market can be considered a multi-dimensional (economic, political, cultural, ethical and so on) entity, which does not exist in vacuo. We focus on the compatibility of equity with efficiency. This paper is organized as follows. In section 1 ("What role of the market?") we will briefly review the problems concerning the working of the market, to which we must give answer. In section 2 ("Separation of Efficiency from Equity") we examine the theoretical meanings of the market that neo-classical economics suggests. As is well known, it is imagined in it that economic transactions constitute solved political problems. This apolitical characterization of the market will be analyzed focusing upon the relationship between economics and politics in general, and the problem of power in economics in particular. In section 3 ("Neo-classical vs. Post-Marxian economics") we will examine the critique of neo-classical economics and the positive role of the market provided by Bowles and Gintis from the perspective of creating "an egalitarian market economy". A central feature of their argument concerns the attractiveness of the market. Focusing upon egalitarianism mainly in terms of wealth, ownership and labour relations, they omit discussion of many other important macro economic considerations. In Section 4 ("Separation of Equity from Efficiency") we then consider the standing of market in the perspective of traditional Mandan economics. In Section 5 ("What can market do?") we first reconfirm the importance of the theoretical challenges: "Whether or not we can design an efficient socio-economic system where people can enjoy liberty, fairness and equality?" We can argue that so-called efficiency realized through market undermines feelings of solidarity with others. The market system inherently involves inequality, which cannot be efficient from the social point of view. So the market requires the public control. We conclude that the market would not be abolished, but reconstructed as an institution to be more accountable to all of society. The market must be viewed as the servant of humanity, not its master

View full abstract

This paper discusses the transformation of employment relations inspired by market individualism and major structural changes in contemporary capitalism. Recent decades in Japan, the USA, and other countries have witnessed the rapid growth of contingent employment. Workers have become polarized into those who work shorter and longer hours. At the same time, average annual working hours have risen, reversing what had been a trend toward long-term decline. Behind these trends are the deregulation of the labor market and market individualism, which treat employees as if they were independent craft workers, and leads to calls for the diversification of employment patterns and individualization of working hours. Four elements of "new economy" capitalism are the source of this transformation. First, the process of globalization has caused intensified competition, forcing the restructuring of production methods and work organization, leading to deteriorating working conditions in the home countries of multinational corporations. Second, advances in information and communication technologies have promoted the outsourcing of business operations and the replacement of full-time employees by part-time and temporary workers. Moreover, the information revolution in offices has given rise to a "24-hour economy," with matching job stress that erodes the private sphere of workers' lives. Third, today's consumer society and the accompanying feminization of the labor force have produced overconsumption driven by a spirit of emulation and unlimited desires, resulting in what Juliet Schor called "the cycle of work and spend." Consumers' pursuit of convenience and low prices has brought employment instability and longer working hours. Fourth, recent management style changes that make stock price performance the highest priority have encouraged downsizing and layoffs. Employees accepted these unpleasant outcomes without much resistance as long as they held stocks, especially when stock prices continued to increase in the 1990s in the USA. The paper concludes that there is an integral relationship between market individualism in worlds of work and structural changes in contemporary capitalism. Driven by developments in information and communication technologies, globalization spreads employment instability and longer working hours by encouraging competition for advantage among consumers and investors. However, contrary to what market individualists think, in this age we need labor policies that place emphasis on workers' common interests and trade unions that represent workers collectively.

View full abstract

Seikan Ishigai found the inner development law based on the theorem that there exists contradiction between power and control in the labour process. Ishigai explains the theorem as follows. Generally speaking, power and control are independent notions respectively and in the active process of technology there exist no power without control and no control without power. These necessarily rest upon one another. We can express that a pair which consists of power and control is a pair of terms that contradict but unify one another. So a pair which consists of power and control has two fold of characters. When human beings in the active technology make all the artificial things move, they add mechanical labour. We explain two fold of characters of power and control not as one of many factors but as essential factor in the active technology, therefore the labour means has power aspect and control aspect, regulated by the theorem, and continues to separate unlimitedly. I trace inner development of shipping technology according to the above theorem. Shipping technology begins with swimming. In swimming propulsion power and direction control are covered by hands and feet movements, after that both are replaced by the labour means, that is, propulsion and direction function is replaced by scull with body conditions of shipping shape. Then scull is separated into oar that covers propulsion power and into paddle that covers direction control. The function of propulsion power and paddle control increases, and at the end of the function paddle is replaced by hinge rudder in parallel with oar replaced by sail. Futhermore, in accordance with social demand the function increases and at the end of the function, then sail is replaced by propeller and hinge rudder by reunited rudder. Propulsion power and direction control system improves new quality. In this case the basic factor of shipping exists in two fold characters of the labour, that is, contradiction exists between power and control in the labour process, so rudder and propeller unite again.

View full abstract

"Zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie" and "Das Kapital", both are Marx's works. But these differ to recognition of labour, which is objectified to the commodity. In "Zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie", labour means individual labour. But in "Das Kapital", labour means private labour. This difference is reflected on 'Versachlichung' (i.e. objectifying) theory. In "Zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie", it is argued about Versachlichung of person. This concept is interpreted as 'relationship between person and person appears as a relationship between object and object'. But this thought has limited the meaning of 'labour' that produces the commodity to individual labour, since it is a fallacy. In "Das Kapital", Versachlichung of labour is discussed. Private labours are organised socially in commodity production society through the fact that the labour products are produced and exchanged as the commodities. Then private labours prove the social character by appearing in object forms, commodities. Anarchy production in commodity production society is controlled by independent motion of value. Fetishisms of commodity make this kind of control possible. Versachlichung theory has theoretical relation with historical materialism and labour theory of value. According to historical materialism, the productive relations are established by advancement level of productive powers. They decide social formation of labours. Therefore, labour has social character that is special historical. In regard to commodity production society, private labours appear in object forms, and prove the social character. Value substance theory is restricted consideration within labours, which are objectified to the commodities. But why is labour expressed to value? This problem is solved by Versachlichung theory. Commodities are exchanged on equivalence conforming to law of value. If under that social circumstance, labours appear in object forms, it can give to abstract human labour social character. Abstract human labour is not the concept that simply means the physiology equality of labour. It can give to equality as a human labour social character. That is abstract human labour.

View full abstract