The world economy is in a continuous deep crisis originating from the US subprime financial crisis. The neo-classical micro economics cannot serve to clarify the causes of such a disaster so long as it lacks a crisis theory. It is natural to see a global revival of intellectual interest in crises theories in Marx's Capital, as well as in Keynesian or post-Keynesian theories. In this paper, let us reexamine multiplicity of Marx's crises theories, Uno's attempt to purify them at a level of basic principles of cyclical crises, and how to apply them to the contemporary world crisis. 1. Multiplicity of Crisis Theories in Marx's Capital Marx's crisis theory was not fully completed. There remained several different crisis theories in Capital. As basic causes, the difficulties to realization of value and surplus value due to either under-consumption or disequilibrium were emphasized in the excess commodity theories of crisis. However, we find other types of crisis theory which underline over-accumulation of capital in relation either to the limited supply of laboring population or to falling rate of profit due to rising composition of capital also in Capital. The fundamental instability in monetary and financial system was also extensively explored there. 2. The Significance of Uno's Theory of Crisis K. Uno's Theory of Crisis(1953) presented a powerful attempt to complete Marx's crisis theory upon the historical ground of typical business cycles in the mid-19 th century, relying on the labour shortage type of over-accumulation theory in combination with credit theory. In my view Uno's crisis theory can easily expanded to include the roles of speculative overtrading and credit expansion toward the end of prosperity, promoting disequilibrium among industries, and causing a destructive acute crisis. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism to treat human labour power as a commodity is stressed as a basic cause of crisis together with contradictory functions of financial system in its efficient elasticity eventually to cause cyclical destructive collapses. In the process of depression, the capitalist mechanism to reproduce industrial reserve army through technological innovation, also demonstrates the difficulty to treat labour-power as a commodity in another context with a resultant difficulty of under-consumption for capitalism. 3. How to Utilize Marx's Crisis Theories in the Contemporary World Uno used to be cautious about too direct application of Marx's basic theory of crisis in the contemporary world, as he was impressed by the great crisis since 1929 which was caused by strong impact of World War I and the consequent agricultural depression, being resolved by World War II. However, in my view capitalism since 1970s became to show again its intrinsic working together with its basic contradictions. Neo-liberalism reflects and reinforces such a basic trend since 1980s. Among others, the inflationary crisis of 1973-05 occurred after over-accumulation of capital in relation to laboring population in the advanced economies, as well as in relation to the flexibility of supply of primary products in the world market, causing a sharp profit-squeeze. Thus, Uno's crisis theory based upon Marx clearly showed its rather direct applicability in our age. D. Harvey in The Enigma of Capital(2010) agrees on this. However, he recommends a multi-causal approach to keep all the crisis theories in Capital to be applied to historically different occasions. He suggests the under-consumption model of crisis is more applicable to the subprime crisis, as real wages was continuously oppressed in the boom before the crisis. In such a multi-causal approach, the basic theory of crisis must be a bundle of possibilities and cannot demonstrate logical inevitability of cyclical crisis as a fundamental law of motion of capitalist economy, as Marx

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

The Lehman Shock prompted the Marx tenet school and the Left-wing liberal group to contemplate if capitalism has reached its demise or whether the Shock was a general crisis of capitalism. However, I do not believe either of these phenomena. This is because most of the advanced nations escaped from this crisis and have now started to recover. The Lehman shock was "only a shock" and was not the sort of crisis that would shake the capitalistic organization. Historically, capitalism became increasingly more flexible and tough as a counterbalancing force and a system against the communism. This is maybe a historical paradox or a dialectical development of the history. As for contemporary capitalism, the role of the financial system overwhelmingly bears an important impression under the name of "financial capitalism". It is an anachronistic point of view to define "financial capitalism" as "casino capitalism" & "avaricious capitalism". It is the same kind for Lenin to give similar superficial evaluations as "parasitic" & "rot characteristics "on Imperialism. It could be argued that the intellectual weakening of the Marx tenet school and the Left-wing liberal group could be in a critical situation. As Marx has taught, we should today face squarely what "financial capitalism" is. It is important to clarify the structure and historical phase of "financial capitalism", as well as to reach an ideological connotation. The era of "financial capitalism" is a new era when the public is able to save positively and spontaneously, from the time in which the public enjoys consumption. Savings at the household level is the significant foundation of "financial capitalism", and it is on this firm basis that the financial system generates funds for the improvement of living standards of the public and economic growth of developing countries. However, sometimes this approach could be prone to risk and vulnerability. This is the reality of the principle of "financial capitalism".

抄録全体を表示

A new feature of economic policy in advanced capitalist countries since Lehman Shock in 2008 is both of Keynesian and neo-liberalist policies have been carried out simultaneously. We can find a typical example in so called Abenomics in Japan, which are consisted of "three arrows", aggressive monetary easing, massive fiscal stimulus, and structural reforms. The second is a typical Keynesian policy and the third is almost neo-liberalist one related to economic deregulations. The first arrow looks like neo-liberalist policy following to the quantity theory of money apparently, but we can estimate it as a modified Keynesian policy because it was explained by the Governor of the Bank of Japan that monetary easing was introduced to change expectation of market participants from deflation to inflation. The aim of this paper is to examine the historical background and meaning of such a phenomenon of nowadays' economic policy especially about the cyclical adjustment policy. As for the historical background, the first phase was appeared in the 1930s after the great depression. Keynesian fiscal policy such as Takahashi-Zaisei in Japan or New Deal in the US was in operation. Although these policies made a certain success in economic recovery, the precedence of the domestic equilibrium over the international one brought about severe economic and political frictions among imperial powers. The second phase was shown in the 1950〜60s. Being added monetary policy to fiscal policy, Keynesian cyclical adjustment had improved greatly. The policy-mix of fiscal and monetary policies enabled to avoid the economic crisis from business cycle. However, under the collapse of the original IMF system by the suspension of exchange between US dollar and gold in 1971, inflation rate had increased rapidly. With two events, the transition to the floating exchange rate system from the fixed one and the first Oil Crisis in 1973, advanced capitalist countries were attacked violent stagflation with double figures inflation and minus growth rate. This was the signal of the end of Keynesian's period. Failing to find any new policy to overcome stagflation, capitalist recalled the old-fashioned means of economic power based on market. It was called neo-liberalist policy, which is carried out first in UK(Thatcherism) and US (Reaganomics). Under neo-liberalist regime, the structure of the world economy has been changed dramatically accompanied with the end of the cold war, Chinese economic reform and the innovation of information & communication technologies. Passing through the transition period of the 1980s, financial and industrial globalizations have progressed under the initiative of the US in the 1990〜2000s. Financial globalization brought about crises in both of exchange and financial markets frequently. Industrial globalization promoted rapid industrialization of rising countries such as BRICs on one hand, on the other hand promoted deindustrialization of advanced capitalist countries. As a result, working conditions of laborers in advanced countries became worse and the capitalist power to control laborers was strengthened. The third phase under neo-liberalist policy was characterized by coexistence of uneasiness of financial market and stabilized capital-labor relations in industrial sectors. The conclusion of this phase, however, was the Lehman Shock as I noticed at the beginning. According to the examination above, we may conclude that there is no policy to adjust business cycle completely. Coexistence of Keynesian & neo-liberalist policy might be the confession of this fact by capitalism itself.

抄録全体を表示

This paper consists of three chapters. The first one explains briefly the contents of K. Marx's "The capital" regarding the economic crisis. He treated this subject all over the book. As the causes of crisis he indicated the over-production of capital, the over-production of commodities, the disproportion among social production, the restricted consumption of the masses, etc. The second one explains briefly the contents of R. Hilferding's "The financing capital" regarding the transformations of economic crisis in the stage of the financial capitalism. He pointed out that the transformation was brought about by the imperfect market-competition organized by big enterprises, the control of the big banks, the regulations by the central bank, etc. In the third one, we emphasize that the Marxian arguments about the causes of the financial crises are more effective than the arguments of other economic theory. Of course, the process of the business fluctuations have changed in various aspects in the recent stage of the financial capitalism compared with former stages. The causes of the changes are, besides above-mentioned factors, for instance, the influence of political interventions to the economy by the state, or the peculiar enlargement of speculative financial behaviors among companies suffering from declining business. According to the Marxian theories, especially Unoist's arguments, the core of the causes is the crash between the decline of profit-rate due to the over-investment and the rise of interest rate or the tightening of finance due to the decreasing prospect of refund. In spite of many changes, this opinion is effective for approaching to the recent financial crises as well.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines Dumenil and Foley's "New Interpreta-tion(NI)" of Marx's value theory as an interpretation of Capital. We can summarize the NI as follows. First, it bridges the dimensions of labor values and prices by the concept of the "value of money," which is defined as the ratio of aggregate labor time to aggregate money value added. Second, it interprets Marx's value theory as a macroeconomic labor theory and the equality between total value and total price as the net one in a given period. Third, it defines the value of labor power as the money wage multiplied by the "value of money," and argues that exploitation is an issue of the distribution of the net value added between workers and capitalists. Although Dumenil and Foley claim that the NI is just what Marx tried to argue in Capital, Marx's texts and manuscripts of Capital show the opposite. Marx's starting point was to criticize classical economists who explained that wage was a proportion of the net value added and exploitation was a distributional issue. The argument of the NI is totally the same with the one of classical economists. In contrast, Marx argues that the capitalist exploitation is for workers to be absorbed into the circuit of capital whose sole aim is to increase the value. Also Marx points out that variable capital, which is used for wage, is the value that workers created not in the present but in the past. These Marx's arguments show that Marx's value theory is quite similar to the "temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI)." Therefore the orthodox(or Sraffian)interpretation of Marx's value theory and the transformation problem is also invalid as an interpretation of Marx. First, although the orthodox interpretation claims that Marx considers exploitation as an issue of the distribution of labor for production, Marx doesn't. Marx's exploitation theory is constructed based on the concept of the circuit of capital, and it is irrelevant to the distribution of labor for production. Second, although the orthodox interpretation claims that the dimension of the transformation is labor time, such claim is both unrealistic and alien to capitalism. Capitalists'criteria are their rates of profit or amounts of profit, not their "rates of profit" of labor time. There is no reason for such "rates of profit" to be uniformed at least in a capitalist society. Thus we conclude that the most appropriate new interpretation of Marx's Capital is the TSSI.

抄録全体を表示

Japanese Marxian philosopher Satoshi Matsui has constructed the "normative theory of socialism" in contrast to the normative theories of liberalism by reading Marx faithfully and investigating controversies about Marx's normative aspects. This paper examines his arguments by comparing them with the views of John Rawls on normative theories and justice. Matsui's normative theory of socialism has centers on Marx's normative "principle" and the change in the role of such a principle in correspondence with the development of society. The latter is more important. According to the Marx's theory of the development of society, namely, "historical materialism," society will necessarily reach communism(the second stage of socialism) after capitalism and via socialism(the first stage of socialism). In the society of socialism, Matsui says, the normative theories of liberalism work well in improving people's lives, but in the society of communism, the normative theories of liberalism must be substituted by the normative principle of Marx. This two-level use of normative theory is the main point of Matsui's normative theory of socialism. Matsui's theory is problematic at two points. First, the justification of his theory is based entirely on historical materialism, so it is not persuasive for non-Marxians unless historical materialism is justified logically or empirically. Second, even if historical materialism is justified successfully, it breaks a condition of normative theories of liberalism ("circumstances of justice" in Rawls's terms), so that we can say nothing about the superiority of Marx's normative principles to those of liberalism because they do not share this condition in common. The "circumstances of justice" condition, however, inescapably introduces "alienation" in Marx's sense. The "circumstances of justice" is a common premise of normative theories of liberalism, and the concept of alienation points out a fundamental problem with normative theories of liberalism. Matsui's failure lies in his use of historical materialism as a ground of justification. The core of the normative theory of socialism, in contrast of normative theories of liberalism, is the concept of alienation, while historical materialism is just a device of Marx's for the abolition of alienation. All normative theorists(not only Marxian but also non-Marxian)must consider seriously the choice between the variety of lives under alienation and the uniformity of lives following the abolition of alienation.

抄録全体を表示

Capitalism has many characteristics different from the former economic system, and usually the first characteristic should be commodity economy. It is because every wealth appear as commodities in capitalism. However, why does capitalism have this characteristic? In our opinion, it is because machineries introduced merit of specialization to our society and it led social division of labor. In this sense, its base is 'technology'. Every basic social change was introduced by the technological change. One more point that should be discussed on this characteristic is that social division of labor needs money for its exchange. It can be shown by comparing two situations that is with money and without money. However, social division of labor with money is not always better than without money. It needs some conditions on the number of producers and number of products. This paper explains these special conditions by a mathematical modeling. Generally, it shows that simple small community did not need any money, while large complicated society needs money for exchange. In this sense, we can understand that money is a historical product which we human beings invented in a certain historical stage.

抄録全体を表示