This paper discusses the rise and fall of the U. S. hegemony in relation to modern globalization. The struggling system of the cold war era ended in 1989-1991. The capitalism system in which the United States is the axis has also strengthened the nuclear and missile systems in the cold war era. The military inflation in the U. S was advancing and went sapping the foundations of the U. S. hegemony. That is, the competitiveness of the U. S. manufacturings was declining and the hollowing of the manufacturings in the U. S. was accelerated. There were big changes in the industrial structures in the U. S, which mean the financial and information services industries took the manufacturings'place and came to forefront. The U. S. also promoted to ease the regulations of the rest of the world to realize the growth of the U. S. financial and information services industries globally and strengthen the foundations of the U. S. financial capitalism's hegemony in the world. The world seemed to be stabilized by globalization under the U. S. hegemony, but the world became even more chaotic than before the Post-cold war era. The United States financed the funds from the world to make the U. S. hegemony stronger. But, it caused the asset bubbles and the excessive consumption in the U. S. The excessive consumption in the U. S made it possible for the world economy to export to U. S and grow. However, the financial crisis happened in 2008. Its aftermath is still followed in Europe. The chains of growth has been replaced by the chains of crisis. The competition for sharing the profit by the wealthy classes of the world has shifted the competition to impute the losses to the others. The gap between the rich and the poor has expanded tremendously. These have weakened the U. S. hegemony. So the United States are not forced to seek the cooperation of the G20. In these situations China has been on the rise. I think these will be the beginning of the decline of the U. S. hegemony and global liquidation of the cold war debt in the world.

View full abstract

Trying to subsume Net by the capital after the capital discovered Net in 1995 but will it be possible? Because, (1) Net leads a state and a capital and makes the ARPANET which the researcher, the scientist, hackers in the university started in the world of "non-commercial" an occurrence mother's body. (2) The principle of Net is contrary <<making public, dispersion and sharing>> with the principle of the <<closure of the capitalism, the centering and privately owning>>. (3) In Net, the unique form-of-production of Net was newly created. Thus, Net limits actual America capitalism historically as the Old World and itself develops as the new world. Actually, the basic characteristic of the latest America capitalism is the use having to do with capitalism of Net. At this article, it takes the future building of Net new world in the world of non-commercial first in the positive side. Next, it catches in the negative side as the process of acquiring the means of the exploitation and the control that Net compatible with capital is new. Then, it exposes the positive side which develops through the negative one lastly, a meaning(the beginning of this history of the human society). It is the technique of the <<dialectic>> which Marcus adopted by the analysis of the big industry. Therefore, that the Net future-Net compatible-Net subsuming is done becomes the propeller shaft, the base line of the post-Cold War step is clarified. The composition of this article is as the following. It begins at the presupposition of the problem. it clarifies beforehand about the difference of the machine and Net in case of use having to do with capitalism. As for the dismantlement as the Old World in cold war imperialism America, In the main subject, the building of Net new world becomes a theme. The key word is: (1) distributed communication, (2) hacker ethic, (3) Net oriented mode of production. After that, at the half, the use having to do with capitalism of Net becomes a theme. The new accumulation form to have supported Net, too, is formed the invention and the discovery are successive and there is an alternation of the new monopoly each time. The broadband, cloud computing and so on. The evolution of new Net causes a lot of Net business. On the other hand, the personalization (the individuation) develops in all the phases and it advances in the ripeness of "the social individual" (Marx), too. The big switch to human history "this history" tries to start.

View full abstract

Historically the United States of America has deeply depended on the inward foreign investment to attain economic development. The United States is welcome foreign investments from many countries of the world at the present age of globalization. However foreign persons and foreign entities are getting increasingly U. S. companies in mergers, acquisitions and takeovers. The United States is in dilemma between the wecoming of foreign investment in the U. S. and the protection of the national security. The United States put a special emphasis on the national security in section 5021 of Omunibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 in the amendment of the Section 721 of Defense Production Act of 1950. The amendment was sponsored by Senotor J. James Exon and Representative James J. Florio and named Exon-Florio provision. The Exon-Florio Amendment is a law that was enacted by the United States Congress in 1988 to review foreign investment within the United States. The amendment was passed into law under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and amended Section 721 of Defense Production Act of 1950. All foreign investments that might affect national security may be reviewed and if deemed to pose a threat to security, the President of the United States may block the investment. Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 addresses investments made by foreign entities in the United States. The law strengthens pre-existing laws including Exon-Florio Amendment and Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The law established a framework for the review foreign acquisitions of U. S. assets by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State. CFIUS reform has been in the works since the the Dubai Ports World tranaction passed through CFIUS without a formal investigation, leaving a surprised and angry Congress determined to avoid a repetition of that scenario. Impetus for reform first began when the China National Oil Corporation publicly announced an interest in UNOCAL in 2005. The law established more stingent rules for the review and formal investigation of transactions, especially those involving foreign governments or critical infrastructure assets.

View full abstract

In 2011, global mass protests emerged, such as Occupy Wall Street movement. This paper considers how we can locate American anti-capitalist movements within the global justice movement. Since the protest against the 1999 WTO Ministerial Conference, the movements against neoliberal globalization have extended with a great variety, involving anarchists/autonomists. The latter's characteristics are symbolized by "Direct Action" or "horizontalism". Contemporary anarchist discourses (David Graeber, Marina Sitrin, and Massimo de Angelis) and Postmodern Marxism (Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri) have diffused, and we can see their influence on the Occupy movements in the United States. But the global justice movement subsumes the other oppositional wings; NGOs, some Marxist trends, popular education movements in Latin America, etc. Above all, according to Graber, "Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy" and "[a] narchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice". How then can we understand the relation between the anarchist's "ethics" and the contemporary Marxist's "theory"? How can we relate anarchist-autonomist views with logics of Marxists who have participated in the global justice movement, such as David Harvey and Samir Amin? Starting from this problem, we can derive five points to consider. 1. How to understand the "outside" of capital - Anarchists and Postmodern Marxists emphasize the creation of "outside" of capital. They suggest somewhat spontaneous emergence of the "common", the "outside", as a result of historical transition from industrial to biopolitical economy (Hardt and Negri), or as a process of "value struggles" (De Angelis). But Marxists propose the analysis of conditions of that emergence. Besides theorizing about capital accumulation/circulation process, theories of "co-evolutionary process" (Harvey) and "under-determination" (Amin) are attempts to study the non-economic conditions of "outside" creation. 2. Imperialism - Hardt and Negri regard the concept of "imperialism" as outdated, and De Angelis underestimates it. On the contrary, Harvey and Amin defend its contemporary importance. This opposition is based on the different interpretation of capitalist time-space. Marxists in question focus on the geographical agglomerations of capitalist activities, while Postmodern Marxists and anarchists emphasize the flattening "space" of capital. 3. State - Direct Action's discourses include the equation of state with capital. Hardt and Negri also identify the "Empire" with capitalistic domination, although considering the "nation-state" as obsolesced. Amin and Harvey oppose these opinions, because they consider the state as an institutional place/space where the capital accumulation process relates to, and collides against, the "co-evolutionary process" or "under-determination". So the "territorial logic of power" in states can hinder the demands of capitalist power. 4. Structural dilemma in social movement's organization - Occupy Wall Street tried to become a hallmark of participatory and democratic decision-making. This "horizontalism" could get Marxists consent. However, Harvey is cautious about a "fetishism of organizational form". Because we need "general rules" to resolve problems at wider scale, progressive anti-capitalist movements must accept hierarchical structures. 5. Position of intellectuals - Contemporary social movements include self-education processes. This poses the question about the position of intellectuals. Anarchists and autonomists condemn the leadership of intellectuals as a justification of hierarchical

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

This paper consists of four main contents. The first one is my counterargument against Prof. Obata's comments on Uno's stage theory of Economics. I think that Obata's understanding on Uno's theory is poor and wrong. Obata reads that Uno estimated that the capitalist economy from the latter part of the 19^<th> century to 20^<th> century is the falling period of capitalism. But it is not true. Uno thought that the capitalism during that period was still developing in a different way from the way of the 19th century. Secondly, Prof. Obata explains that the recent capitalism has been making a great conversion both inside and outside the capitalist nations through the world-wide neo-liberalism. He alleges that this fact also means the characteristics of the recent capitalist economy that changes from the partiality of capitalism to expansiveness to the whole. But I do not agree with him. I understand that the partiality of capitalism originates in the partiality of the market economy for the traditional human lives itself. Market economy essentially can not invade all aspects of human life. Human beings resist the invasion of market economy on their lives in various fields according to their cultures, their customs, their religions, their standards of value, etc.. The diversity of capitalist economy is the products of compromise with each other. That is why the capitalist economy brings forth divergence. Even neoliberalism can not bring convergence. Thirdly, Prof. Obata claims that K. Uno's method of economics is of no effect on the analysis of the recent economy of capitalism. But I do not think so. K. Uno proposed the method called the three levels of the study of economics, the principles of economics, the stage theory of capitalist development, and the realistic analysis of the current situations. The principles of economics are the pure theories, which consist of pure forms and mechanism of market economy only. The stage theory explains the peculiarity of changes and divergences in the capitalist development, dividing the historical developments into three stages; the stage of commercial capital domination, the stage of industrial capital domination, and the stage of financial capital domination. As for this second level of the Uno's method, there are two main factors which influence peculiar situations of each stage; one is the behavior of the dominant capital of the concerned stage, and the other is the structure of the powerdisposition of the world economy and policy. From this viewpoint, above-stated 3 stages can be divided into 9 substages. I think this method of this stage-study is useful and effective for the study of the current situations. Finally, the general concept of "financial capital" should be revised, because the behavior of the recent financial capital is considerably different from that of the former financial capital, which used to finance industrial enterprises. Nowadays, it acts and functions more speculatively. I consider the third stage of historical development of capitalism can be divided into 4 sub-stages, and the dominant type of the financial capital in the fourth substage is the securitized capital of various sources of profits. The study of the behavior of financial capital of this type must be useful for the purpose of analysis of recent situations.

View full abstract

In this paper, I tried to introduce Shibata Kei's approach of the generalization of the concept of Bohm-Bawerk's average period of production in the autoregressive pattern of inputoutput structure and explained the relation between Shibata's approach and latest Matsuo Tadasu's approach of the same problem, and then proved both approach to be the same. The average period of production defined by Bohm-Bawerk expressed the length of roundabout production process. This concept was criticized because it only can be applied in the case of a single linear stage pattern of production. But there is the autoregressive pattern of inputoutput structure in the general way, in the real world. In that case, the method of how to determine average period of production become a problem. To add to the difficulty, original Bohm-Bawerk's argument was constructed on the assumption that we can know the point of time when production was carried on with only labor and without the use of capital goods (so, with only original factor of production). But if there is a autoregressive pattern of input-output structure, we must track back the roundabout production process for ever, like capital goods → capital goods → capital goods → capital goods →…. It is general view that such attempt is destined to fail because the roundabout period of production reaches an infinite value and then average period of production reaches an infinite value. However, Shibata presented a mathematical way of determinating the average period of production in autoregressive pattern of input-output structure. In addition, Shibata concluded that in such a case the average period of production has a finite value. But unfortunately Shibata's research is not complete. Now therefore, his study should be repaired and brought to perfection. In this paper, I tried to do so. In addition, a similar research to the same problem was made by Matsuo Tadasu's recent paper (Matsuo (1994), Matsuo (2010)). Hence I tried to clear up the relation between Shibata's approach and Matsuo's approach.

View full abstract