This paper aims to establish clearly that Contemporary Capitalism can be construed as Information Capitalism. Capitalism grew with manufacturing as the key industry and came to its current form along with the production of inorganic matters/intangible goods. With elements being quantifiable, a defining characteristic of the production of inorganic materials/intangible goods is the concept of efficiency in the sense that the process from input to output are technically determinable. It can be argued that the advancement of the so called profit motive based capital, which in actuality, was also manufacturing that produced inorganic materials/intangible goods, was brought about by its aim of realizing maximum profits at the least expense. "Informatization" which started from the 1970's imparted technical determinability to fields that up to that time had no technical determinability such as the distribution division, for example, by enabling the prediction of the process from input to output and at the same time raised the level of industries existing up to that time. In this paper, the balance between "bringing up industry to high level production through knowledge work" and "reconstructing non-industrial fields industrially" is prescribed as "hyper-industrialization." Knowledge work means work done to execute high level professional activities that makes full use of technologies such as simulation technologies. What must really be paid attention to is that, for manufacturing industries, this knowledge work that supports the raising of industries to high levels basically comes from external "producer services division." Indeed, the so called" transformation to a service economy" which is characteristic of post-industrialization reveals one side of "high level industrialization." Information capitalism is, quite simply and in reality, the "hyper-industrialization" of contemporary capitalism.

View full abstract

Though the capital uses digitalizing and networking of information as a means of the value proliferation in an economic process of the reality and the cyberspace, it brings new problems and contradictions. Digitalizing and networking of information facilitated an overseas transfer of the immediate production process and offered a technical base that promoted the globalization. The division of the immediate production process promoted the de-industrialization by bringing an overseas transfer of production. And digitalization and networking of information magnify anarchy of production, and make the system of monopoly unstable. First, the order system based on the demand forecast that exists inside the SCM (Supply Chain Management) system will generate probably the chain and the accumulation of overproduction once a demand forecast becomes excessive, and increases instability of production. The manufacturing enterprise cannot acquire an accurate sales information in the circulation process because information systems are not connected between different enterprises. The manufacturing enterprise plans production based on an excessive sales forecast at the boom period. Therefore, anarchy of production cannot be removed by the SCM system and the POS (Point of sales) system. Second, As for the information and communication industry, the monopoly is always threatened by the obsolescence of the product technology and the appearance of the alternate product in the innovation by scientific labor and technical labor. For instance, though the Internet Explorer of Microsoft monopolizes the market, as for the browser technology of the Internet, its rule is being threatened because of the recent appearance of Mozilla Firefox and Opera. In the search technique of the Internet, it is being criticized that Google tries to control a market, and to monopolize an information. However, if the P2P technology is used, information on personal computers all over the world can be retrieved. Therefore, the market control of Google also has the possibility to be threatened by an innovation. In the above-mentioned point, monopoly in the digital capitalism is different from monopoly based on the heavy and chemical industries. Because information revolution changed the scientific and technological labor into the productive capacity, the instability of monopoly was brought. Scientific and technological labor of the individual breaks down existing monopoly. And, individual research and development in the telecommunication area has come to the stage where it has a big influence for an economic process. That's the case with the development of the P2P technology and the development of Linux, etc. At the stage of digital capitalism, it is possible to say that an age has come when scientific and technological labor of the individual provide the productive capacity in parallel with the accumulation of the science by governments and large-scale enterprises. The situation that scientific and technological labor of the individual became basic of the productive capacity has changed the relation between monopoly and competition in the contemporary capitalism.

View full abstract

About ten years ago, many proponents of the IT Revolution said that IT would change our economy and society completely, so we should be ready to reform ourselves completely. But what has the IT Revolution brought forth since then? I think the IT Revolution has brought forth chief two results. One result is all-over automation, and another result is flood of information (intensifying competition and restructuring). All-over automation means FA (factory automation), OA (office automation) and HA (home automation). Home automation has brought many conveniences. But FA and OA have brought cut of employees. So unemployment has increased. However, in Japan (and perhaps in US), unemployed people can not exist as unemployed for a long time, because social security for them is too poor. Accordingly, unemployed must get a job anyhow, even if the pay is extremely low and the working hour is extremely long. I name these people "de facto unemployed." "De facto unemployed" have increased remarkably as the result of the IT Revolution. Flood of information has given birth to many serious problems as following; (1)Of course, it has brought about a very convenient society called "ubiquitous network society." But it also has a possibility to conjure up a terrible society where every one is watched from everywhere. (2)Flood of information forces companies to continue "restructuring" ceaselessly under the global competition. (3)Many workers have become forced to work even at night and even at home, because such working has become possible by using PC, mobile phone and other IT instruments. (4)Excess of information (e.g. 100 e-mails a day) causes people diseases coming from mind harassment. As a result of both automation and flood of information, un-equality of income has spread. Many people have paid attention to the effect of the IT Revolution on the trade cycle and economic growth. But I find that its effect on them are about the same as previous technological innovations. After seeing what the IT Revolution has brought forth as above, I have tried to see what the Revolution means concerning Marxian economic theory and socialism in future. Marx writes (at the end of the 24^<th> Chapter of The Capital I) of "the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common." However, under the IT Revolution, majority of workers use the instruments of labour usable individually. This seems to differ from Marx's opinion. But I see these workers are firmly associated through the very IT communication means. Today's IT Revolution is giving a big pain to the working class. But, sooner or later, the trend will be reversed. I think socialism will come again surely in future. But the future socialism will be different in very many respects from the defunct Soviet-style socialisms. I think future socialism must be a "liberalistic and individualistic socialism," based on the freedom and individualism attained by the IT Revolution.

View full abstract

This paper discusses recent changes in division of labor. These changes have been occurring through the development and diffusion of information technology. (1) Information technology is based on the idea of reducing any information to binary digital information that is available in computers. This method has transformed tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge as much as possible. It also has stimulated new fields to open where computers can be adapted. Besides, microelectronics can make computers very small and handy by developing and using integrated circuits. This is the technological reason why computers have come to be used everywhere in our society these days, including factories, offices, farms, schools, hospitals, many kinds of markets, and other various institutions. (2) Nowadays a great many means of labor have been computerized thanks to information technology. Computers can automatize multi-purpose machines and they are also useful in feed-back control systems in factories. From these changes in means of labor, new division of labor within a workshop has been produced. In this new division of labor, laborers are not necessarily fixed to thoroughly divided parts of the production process. They can be reorganized according to their own functions. (3) On the other hand, information technology stimulates activities of invention. And it rapidly diffuses new inventions all over the world. So it will accelerate global competitions: so-called "Mega-competition". In the process of global competitions, concentration and centralization of capital must go forward, that results in global monopolies. This tendency is now beginning to appear. (4) Global monopolies organize the social division of labor. They organize various workshops in various countries. Information technology is a great use for this. Anarchy in the social division of labor is the basic condition in capitalism. But now, global monopolies have begun to design it to a certain extent.

View full abstract

After the latter half of 1990s, non-regular employment has increased remarkably. It is the reason that each firm reduces the cost of labor and survives in the days of great competition. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the influence on the economic growth, which comes from replacing regular employment with non-regular employment. The wage differential between regular workers and non-regular workers is remarkable. Therefore, consumer confidence of regular workers, who do not lose their job, will deteriorate when the reduction of regular employment is performed. While regular employment has been reduced, long time regular workers have increased. It seems that this tendency will continue in future. Working for a long time decreases consumer demand on mainly leisure time. As the above-mentioned reasons, it is thought that the regular workers average propensity to consume (RW-APC) declines. The degree of decline of RW-APC affects the economic growth rate. If replacing regular employment with non-regular employment does not decline RW-APC that much, the economic growth rate rises. The reason is that the addition of non-regular workers by regular employment reduction increases consumer demand of economy. However, the growth rate comes to fall if RW-APC comes to decline ahead of a certain level. And the economic growth rate falls more greatly, if the degree of decline of RW-APC becomes bigger. In addition, wage increase of non-regular workers raises the economic growth rate and it increases regular and non-regular employment. This can also raise the real wage of both workers. In this way, wage increase of non-regular workers improves employment environment.

View full abstract

In Marxian economics, traditionally, it has been presumed that the fall of unemployment rate caused by an increase in accumulation of capital brings the rise of wages, the fall of the profit rate, and a consequent decrease in accumulation of capital, and vice versa. In this formula, accumulation of capital is stabilized by the labor market. It is the 'general understanding' for the majority of this school. Meanwhile, precisely, this 'general understanding' suggests that the fall of unemployment rate in the labor market leads the nominal wage rate to rise, and that the rise of the real wage rate leads the profit rate to fall. The real wage rate equals to the nominal wage rate adjusted by consumer prices which are determined in the commodity market. Thus, the rationality of the 'general understanding' is conditioned on the following assumption: the upward movement of the nominal wage rate is stronger than that of consumer prices, which implies that the real wage rate is determined in the labor market, not in the commodity market. But it is not self-evident. From the above point of view, in this particular paper, I formulate a theory about the correlation between accumulation of capital and the labor market by considering the mechanism of determining the real wage rate and that of the supply-demand adjustment in the labor market. I reach three conclusions stated below. First, Okishio's theory, in which he claimed that the labor market is eventually unrelated with determining the real wage rate, appears to be unacceptable. While it should be appreciated that he focused on the question of either of the markets, the labor market or the commodity market, works as a decisive factor when enterprises make a decision on investment plans, it must be emphasized that both markets works as important factors. In fact, for enterprises, it is the profit rate which is the most important interest and both markets have an influence on determining it through the fluctuation of the nominal wage rate or that of prices of consumption goods. In this sense, we should not ignore the roles of both markets in the process of determining the real wage rate. Second, it is confirmed that basically the real wage rate is determined in the labor market. Although it is surely the nominal wage rate that is determined directly in the labor market, it is in fact determined in order to realize the real wage rate which reflects the situation of the labor market, and then the real wage rate reaches an equilibrium price. In short, the real wage rate is determined through the nominal wage rate in the labor market. It should be noted that this theory is validated under the assumption that a propensity to consume falls according to the rise of the nominal wage rate. Third, the above assumption about a propensity to consume is generally valid in the short-term theory in which the fluctuation of prices is explained. Therefore, the labor market usually works as it has been described in the above, and which brings a stable correlation between accumulation of capital and the labor market. In this sense, the 'general understanding' in Marxian economics is justified. However, as it occasionally happens, when a propensity to consume does not fall according to the rise of the nominal wage rate because of the change of the workers' attitudes of consumption by some factors, the labor market can not work to reach an equilibrium price. In this case, the correlation between them becomes unstable.

View full abstract

Development of his economic theory in Capital consumed the better part of Marx's life. Yet, paradoxically, throughout more than a century following Marx's passing, Marxism (the body of thought tracing its lineage to Marx), notwithstanding a fecund heterogeneity, is offered up as essentially a theory of history. Indeed, today, few dispute the view of historical materialism as the center-piece of Marxism, with political economy, portrayed at best as a sub-theory. Analysis in this paper turns upon the question of how what is here dubbed the retreat from the economic in Marxist theory is impelled by the sub-theory role political economy plays in support of historical materialism. The retreat is traced across the work of three prominent Marxist theoreticians-Karl Kautsky, Georg Lukacs and Louis Althusser-each widely accepted as representatives of epochs of Marxist thought. The article then introduces an alternative approach to the relationship between Marxian economics and historical materialism predicated upon a reconstruction of Marxism originating in Japan. It demonstrates how the Japanese Uno approach returns political economy to its rightful place within Marxist theory-effecting a return to Marx.

View full abstract

It seems that relations between technology and environmental problems still become a problem in one of the many problems over technology of the present age. In this article, we consider the method of technological analysis on the environmental studies. In studies about relations between technology and environmental problems in the conventional mainstream, by the method of definition and theoretical limits on labor and capital, influences of the technological progress of capital which is a main factor of innovation and labor to innovation have not been analyzed concretely in the process of production in the enterprises. On the other hand, as to technological analysis for pollution problems, it was important in clarifying concretely in line with the process of production on the mechanism of pollution outbreak at the enterprise/industry level. However, in recent years, it is still necessary to clarify specialty of the social economic structure by institutional analysis on issues of industrial pollution and various environmental problems in socialist states and other areas. In this article, the arguments in Neo-Schumpeterian and Marxian economics are examined on the issue of concrete technical progress of capital and the resolution to technological factors. As a result, in argument of Neo-Schumpeterian, a theory including technical progress in dynamics can be shown by a modified premise of capital stock. However, on the other hand, it is necessary to be clarified not only diversified dynamics of technological progress of the capital which is a main factor of innovation, but also relationship between labor and innovation. When based on argument in Marxian economics for this, analysis of internal factors of technology by a viewpoint of analysis of process and product/production technology is thought to be an issue on relations between capital/labor and innovation.

View full abstract