I define environmental destruction as contemporary poverty; and unemployment, economic crisis and alienation of labor as classic poverty. Both poverties are caused by the same process of capital-accumulation. After World War II, capital globally has been accumulated and also has destroyed our environment. Therefore, we should analyze both kinds of poverty as the contradictions of the global accumulation of capital. The global accumulation of capital deepened the economic crisis, uneven development and combined development of capitalism. Classic economic poverty appeared again as a result of the world financial crisis and resultant depression in 2008, and the developed countries exported environmental pollution (kogai) to the under-developed countries and created the global environmental destruction. At the same time, we must think seriously about the fact that the environmental destruction affects the poor people in the world most severely. I want to propose "the sustainable society", "the temporary system from capitalism to socialism" and "the ecological socialism or ecological Marxism" as the means of transformation of our present socio-economic system. I want to question whether the ecological problems can be resolved within capitalism, or whether only socialism can resolve them. These are the most problematic questions about the environmental destruction. In the short view, we must pursue "the sustainable society" or "the temporary system from capitalism to socialism". But in the long view, we must fight for new socialism (Green & Red) with ecological Marxian Economics as basis. I believe that only ecological socialism or ecological Marxism can resolve the problems of environmental destruction, exploitation and poverty simultaneously. The resolution of all of them has to be simultaneous and has to be interconnected. If Marx and Engels had predicted that the communist society would be realized before the environmental destruction would be so advanced as it is at the present, we must recognize that the resolution of environmental destruction is the task of all humankind. Also we must develop the theory and movement of social system that enables us to co-exist with nature. Marxian economists must study and research the environmental problems with full force. Marx & Engels who founded Marxian Economics, were also pioneers in ecological studies. We must study the fundamentals of Marx & Engels and analyze the present environmental and economic crises which Marx & Engels did not experience. In order to do so, we must expand and deepen the framework of political economics. We have the historical views of Marx & Engels (historical materialism). We must apply their tools and methods to the present historical crises. We would think more of production rather than distribution, use-value rather than exchange value, and must analyze the tendency of capitalist society to destroy the environment and negate itself.

View full abstract

The paper argues that theoretical framework of Marxian economics should be rebuilt under the rise of newly emerging capitalism such as China, India and Brazil. Based on the recognition that the setback of neo-liberalism revealed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 is not the end of globalism, but the beginning of the full-fledged development of globalization, we have fundamentally changed the stage theory of historical development of capitalism which insists that capitalism has a single origin and goes through three stages of generation, development and decline, into the Multilayered Origins Theory of Capitalism such that different types of capitalism swarms intermittently in different regions. It tells us that structural change comparable to the rise of England with decline of the Netherlands, the subsequent rise of Germany with decline of Britain, is now happening between the advanced capitalist countries in the 20th century and emerging economies in the 21st century. Such understanding about the history of capitalist development requires abolishing the single image of capitalism based on the theory of pure capitalism such as Kozo Uno proposed. Here we examined three aspects of his idea, (1) significance of dividing theory into two layers, (2) limitations of the idea of closing to and leaving from the pure state of capitalism, and (3) inconsistency in dividing stages into mercantilism, liberalism and imperialism. Alternatively after illustrating the Transformation Approach focused on structural changes in capitalism, we try to check the validity of the theory by studying three contemporary issues, namely, employment, environment and private property of knowledge and information. It leads us to the idea of maturity in advanced capitalism after neo-liberalism. Matured capitalism, though flexible to change with dismantling the social relations and spreading ideology that persuade people to think it natural, still cannot return to welfare state capitalism in 20th century under the rise of emerging capitalism. It has no choice without neo-socialism.

View full abstract

This paper argues what socialism was in the last two centuries and what it still can be in the coming age through reconsideration of the relation among three aspects of Marxism, that is, scientific recognition of reality, struggle for social change, and norms which leads value judgment. Early socialists saw in capitalist society an extreme differentiation over wealth and labor. They criticized capitalism based on the norms that everyone has the right to exist and develop humanly and that everyone has the duty to live not on privately owned property but on his or her own labor. With a few exceptions, most of early socialists advocated universal labor obligation and proclaimed radical reform including the abolition of market and wage labor. While Marx started from this tradition, he drastically transformed the historical nature of socialism. According to Marx's historical materialism, the transition from capitalism to socialism is not a social reform realizing specific norms, but a historical inevitability governed by the objective law of social development. At the same time he admitted that human's conscious actions can affect this transition within a certain bounds. From this viewpoint, the ultimate justice lies in the activity to promote this transition based on scientific recognition of the law. Therefore in Marxism the development of productive force and the victory of labor class in classstruggle are the highest norms which have priority over any other norms. Lenin added following three original propositions to classical Marxism. First, only the party of Marxist revolutionaries is able to lead labor class based on precise recognition of their genuine interests. Secondly, there is no moral restridion in the choice of means of struggle as far as it is necessary for revolution. Thirdly, on the outbreak of the imperialist war the age of world socialist revolution on a global scale begins. These propositions justified communist parties of any country to raise a revolution regardless of the stage of domestic economic development and to use unlimited revolutionary violence against class-enemy. The socialist system of the 20-th century was Leninist regime in that the communist party anointed itself as the permanent and omnipotent master of the people. It also embraced Marxist ideology in that it pursued rapid development of the productive force and political struggle to defeat domestic and foreign class-enemy as the highest norms. Furthermore, this system partially realized the ideal of early socialism in that abolished unearned income and guaranteed its citizen a minimum level of existence. In order for socialism to be a thought which can contribute to social change in the 21-st century, first of all we must separate it off from the dogma of historical inevitability. This task is naturally associated with clarification of the socialist norms which are to be realized through social reform. Considering the past history where the pursuit of labor obligation resulted in the persecution of "non-worker" and the creation of forced labor system, clarification of the norms should be made in the direction to put the right to exist and develop humanly at the center of socialist norms and to reconsider the relation between this right and other norms relating freedom, equality, democracy and economic development.

View full abstract

The global integration of economies under neoliberal policy regimes has had a fundamental impact on employment worldwide. High-income, industrialized countries have experienced growth in non-regular forms of employment and a rollback of social protections which, in the past, were associated with having a relatively permanent, full-time job. The same pressures have entrenched informal employment arrangements in developing countries, many of which have also seen a rise of other precarious forms of employment. This paper explores the intersections between the current trajectory of globalization, changes to the structure of employment, and the relationship to policies aimed at protecting decent work opportunities. In so doing, it examines global factors that affect labor demand and labor supply. Specifically, the paper argues that recent trends in the global economy have limited labor demand relative to labor supply, creating pressures that have produced structural changes in employment that compromise the welfare of working people and affects the future trajectory of economic development. A central thesis of the paper is that common factors emerging from the neoliberal era of globalization has affected employment in a range of countries, but specific labor market outcomes are dependent on local institutional and structural realities. The paper examines changing patterns of employment in Japan and the U. S. in recent years. One feature of the recent period of globalization is the pronounced 'financialization' of national economies and the periodic occurrence of devastating economic crises. We gain valuable insights on how these dynamics have played themselves out in high-income economies by using Japan and the U. S. as examples. The paper, firstly, introduces the concept of the structure of employment, which will be used as an organizing framework throughout the paper. Then the paper examines broad trends affecting labor demand and labor supply in the period of neoliberal globalization, and shows how a shifting balance between labor demand and supply can transform the structure of employment. After having established this analytical foundation, the process of financialization, the formation of asset price bubbles, and the subsequent crises in Japan and the U. S. are discussed. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of policy implications to improve decent work opportunities globally.

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze the relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis, based on K. Marx's manuscript of Capital Volume III Part three (MEGA II/4.2). As is generally known, there are many controversies about the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit considered by Capital Volume III Part three. Especially the arguments have been done within the relation between crisis and "an absolute overproduction of capital" and also "overproduction of commodities", which is depicted in the Part three Chapter 15. One main argument is pointed out by Uno [1974a] who understands crisis from the point of "an absolute overproduction of capital" occurred by a rise in wages. Another key point is discussed by Imura [1984] who explains crisis based on "overproduction of commodities" after rejecting the concept of "an absolute overproduction of capital" as "an extreme hypothesis". Finally Tomituka [1975] mentioned because "these two concepts simultaneously have the antinomic character" they should be understood in an integrated sphere. However, as far as I am concerned, the most significant problem that is common to their arguments, would be that these are dealt with within the area that the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit are not basically relating to the moments of crisis. These common views are shown by their thoughts that the law should be separated from the description of crisis in Chapter 15, as the subject of the Chapter 15 should not be understood "Development of the Law's Internal Contradictions", but "'Development of Inner Contradictions' of the capitalist production in the development of the productivity and the progress of the capital accumulation" or "Development of Inner Contradictions of the method of capitalist production" (Imura [1984] p.193, Uno [1974a] p.170, Tomituka [1994] p.79). In other words, even though the disputants admit the law, the generally accepted opinion within hitherto studies is that the law does not have an impact on crisis and the industrial cycle in the short term but only fanctions in the long term. So the arguments have been done over the account of the crisis in Chapter 15 on the premises that the law does not have a direct relation to crisis. As the original manuscript of Capital Volume III Part three was released, it is now clear that some statements and paragraphs were removed and moved around respectively by F. Engels and even he made up all of the titles and sections. In order to discuss the relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis, we should carefully reconsider the concept of "an overproduction of capital" which is one of the significant focus points. In a separate account from "an absolute overproduction of capital" there is a statement about "real overproduction of capital (die wirkliche Ueberproduction von Capital)" in the original draft. Interestingly in this text Marx recognises "an absolute overproduction of capital" not as "an extreme hypothesis" as Imura [1984] mentioned, but as a real possible situation. Morover, there is an original statement about "a rise in wages" as the moment of crisis, relating to "an absolute overproduction of capital", too. In this paper, on the basis of the above arguments which should be reconsidered based on the original manuscript, it will demonstrate how Marx grasped the logical relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis.

View full abstract

Recent theoretical and empirical analyses have developed Kaldor's concept of 'cumulative causation'. They formalise two-way routes between labour productivity growth and demand growth: 'demand regime' and 'productivity regime'. However, these studies are insufficient in terms of formulating demand regime, which is the route from labour productivity growth and demand growth. Their limitation is that capital accumulation is abstracted. Since the demand regime shows the middle- and long-term relationship between labour productivity growth and demand growth, it is necessary to incorporate capital accumulation, which is one of the factors of long-term economic growth as well as technological change. In this paper, we formulate the demand regime by explicitly taking capital accumulation into account. Using a cumulative causation model with two sectors producing consumer goods and investment goods respectively, we examine how two structural changes affect cumulative causation. The first is a structural change on the technological side: remarkable labour productivity growth in information-technology-related (IT-related) industries owing to rapid technological progress. The second is a structural change on the final demand side: an increase in capital inflow and outflow owing to international capital flow. These structural changes create a shift in the productivity regime and the demand regime. According to our analysis, the growth in output and productivity of investment goods is influenced by three factors: the effects of capital accumulation, changes in relative prices, and structural change in final demand. In particular, we examine how foreign capital inflow relates to these three factors. We explain the following points relevant to the effect of international capital flow on cumulative causation. The first is expansion of international economic disparity due to international capital flow. Assuming all other conditions are equal for both the advanced countries and the developing countries, if the external fund dependence rate of the private business sector in developed countries is larger than it is in developing countries, the international capital flow increases the economic disparity between them. This is one backwash effect that Myrdal mentioned with regard to capital movement. The second is economic fluctuation amplified by volatility of foreign capital. This volatility in our model, fluctuation of the external fund dependence rates, causes fluctuation in the demand structure parameter, if all other parameters are assumed to be constant. In the upward phase of this parameter, the demand structure change effect is positive. Therefore, an increase of foreign capital inflow causes acceleration of the demand growth for investment goods. Thus, fluctuation in the quantity of production of investment goods is amplified by increase and decrease in foreign capital inflow. The third is complementarity of capital liberalization policy and export promotion policy. The ratio of the net export of investment goods to the private business investment and the external fund dependence rate in the private business sector are complementary in relation to the demand structure parameter. When these two parameters rise simultaneously, these effects are strengthened further. Paraphrasing this complementarity in the context of the development policy of developing countries, it means that the economic growth rate increases greatly when the capital liberalization policy and the export-oriented industrialization policy focusing on machinery production are simultaneously implemented.

View full abstract