On Communism:Page13

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

5. Lands belong to none anymore.

5.1. Communism and property rights

In capitalism, the concept of property rights occupies a position comparable to that of God, but among them, land ownership is the king of the property rights, the first place in capitalism, so to speak.

So, what will happen to this crucial land ownership in a communist society will be the greatest concern, but before proceeding to that question, let us organize the idea of ownership in communism in general. The familiar anti-communist propaganda is that you will be stripped of your private property rights. But as you can see below, it is a misunderstanding.

First of all, it goes without saying that complete personal ownership is recognized for general consumer goods for daily use. For example, the jackets and underwear you wear today are our personal belongings even in a communist society. However, things such as furniture and home appliances will be lent out free of charge as "common social goods" or "socially shared goods."

When such large consumer goods are discarded, they tend to become so-called "oversized garbage." Therefore, all of them are treated as social common goods or socially shared goods, and when they are finished using, they are returned rather than discarded at the end of their useful life. In the communist economy, which is a “durable economy,” the useful life of products is set longer and continued reuse in the form of relending can reduce the amount of bulky waste generated. Considering this, it will be understood that it is more rational than acknowledging ownership of oversized garbage in the future.

As a term similar to the above "social sharing," there is "social ownership" that we saw earlier in the section on production business organizations. This is a concept that stipulated the nature of production entities centered on key industries.

This idea may seem like a deprivation of private ownership, but even under a capitalist economy, most stock companies in key industries are public companies listed on the stock market. They are no longer just the private properties of individual capitalists, but is subject to semi-socialized public ownership. It could be said that 'social ownership' is nothing more than taking a few steps forward - albeit not a short one - in the phenomenon of 'socialization of capital' that has already begun within capitalism.

Here, before going into the main issue of land, I would like to touch on the housing issue, which is closely related to land. To begin with, it is in housing that communism finds its ultimate right of ownership. This is because "having" a place to live is a fundamental possession for humans. That is why the loss of housing can almost become a denial of being human.

The capitalist economy has turned housing rental into commercial capital, creating a large number of renters, that is, people who do not own a house and who would lose their home if they cannot pay the rent. It can be said that this is a phenomenon that shows the inhumanity of capitalism at a fundamental level.

A rental house system is possible under communism, but with the abolition of the monetary economy, renting business is no longer possible, and gratuitous lending will become the rule. Moreover, in the case of public rented houses provided by local authorities, etc., it is possible to effectively turn the leasehold right into ownership by establishing a leasehold right that can be leased for life and inherited between generations in principle.

On the other hand, in the case of privately rented houses provided by private citizens, it is expected that the rental business operators who will not be able to earn rental income due to the abolition of rentals will abandon their ownership rights. Also, individual landlords will also pull back from housing rentals. Thus those rented housing will all be taken over by public institutions and converted into public tenancy.

5.2. Harmful effects of the land private ownership system

There is no doubt that it is the landowners - including corporate organizations that own land - that react most negatively to communism. This is because they fear more than anything else the deprivation of land ownership, which is their proof of existence.

By the way, in the collectivist system, nationalization of land is a public policy, and even in China, which has turned from collectivism to a "socialist market economy," the land nationalization system has been maintained as a legal framework, although it gradually has become a mere formality (See Article 10 of the Chinese Constitution). On the other hand, since communism does not have the concept of the state, land cannot be "state-owned" or "nationalized." So will land ownership rights be preserved in order to soothe landowners' nerves?

The answer is "no." But why is communism so negative about the system of private land ownership? This is because of all the economic institutions that mankind has created so far, none is as strange and harmful as private land ownership.

First of all, it is irreverent in appropriating the earth, that is, in making the earth, which is a component of the celestial body called Earth, our property.

In addition, the land, which is a product of nature, is also subject to speculation by adding a price (= exchange value). In this way, forcibly giving a product form to lands that are not originally commodities and encouraging speculation, along with stock speculation, has become a factor in the formation of a bubble economy that is separated from the real economy, and illegal land transactions that infringe on the right to live are also rampant.

During the 20th century, class evils such as the parasitic landlord system were dismantled in a number of countries, while in the 21st century, forms such as the large land ownership system are still preserved in the world, exploiting and oppressing farmers. 

Still, a system of small land ownership, in which the large land ownership system is dismantled and the land ownership is divided into small lots, is by no means without problems. The system is exactly what makes land speculation possible, and when it comes to urban planning, fragmented and intricate private land becomes an obstacle and hinders the effective use of land, and idle land owned by capitalist companies and commercial land become a factor in the shortage of residential land. It is well known that disputes over complicated land titles are the most serious of all property disputes and sometimes even cost the lives of the parties.

Thus the aim is to abolish the system of private land ownership, which is the most harmful of all private ownership systems.

5.3. Communist land management system

Earlier, we argued that "nationalization" of land is logically impossible under communism. Then who will own the land? The somewhat sidestepped answer is that land does belong to nobody. It is treated as a product of nature, just like wild animals and plants.

At this statement, there is no need to invoke the notion of "God's possession" or similar supernatural objects. This is because communism is an essentially secular thought and theory.

In this way, even if land is understood as a property that does not belong to anyone, the problem of how to actually manage the land remains. In this regard, even though there is no such thing as a "state" in a communist society, there is a territorial scope of administrative power (this is called the zone; see Chapter 4 for details). A possible solution is the idea that a zone's governing organization - the Commons' Convention- retains control over, but not ownership, of all land within its sphere.

Specifically, all land within a zone will be under the control of the Commons' Convention of the zone- more specifically, the Land Management Agency supervised by the Commons' Convention.

As a result, the land within the relevant zone cannot be used, profited from, or disposed of without the permission of the Land Management Agency. In addition, regarding the site of individual housing and facilities of private organizations, land use rights are guaranteed to the owners of housing or facilities (including corporations) within the limits necessary for the use of such housing or facilities. In principle, this land use right shall be indefinite, and may be transferred or leased (free of charge) based on the permission of the agency.

However, with regard to farmland, the aforementioned Agricultural Production Organization collectively holds the permanent right to use (cultivation right).

5.4. Management of natural resources

As will be discussed again in the final chapter, communism regards not only the land but also the natural resources buried in the ground as things belonged to nobody.

For example, today, oil is viewed as the property of the state that owns the territory that holds it (resource nationalism). Although, as we will see in detail in Chapter 4, communism does not leave the notion of "territory" as a sanctuary, resource nationalism can be described as a political system of land ownership at the national level. 

The interests of these oil-producing countries and the speculation of investors are intricately intertwined day by day (resource capitalism), and by extension, that is also a factor that directly hits the lives of the general consumer class located at the end.

However, considering the finite nature of petroleum and the environmental impact of petroleum fuel, the time has come to place petroleum, along with other important natural resources, under the control of transnational management organizations.

That said, in order to make such a thing completely possible, as we will see in the final chapter, we will have to wait for the creation of a truly transnational governing organization, the World Commonwealth.

On Communism:Page12

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

4. New types of production organizations emerge.

4.4. PBOs for the primary sector of the economy 

Communism will correct the capitalist production system, which has overemphasized the secondary and the tertiary sector of the economy, and restore the weight of the primary sector of the ecomony, especially agriculture. 

In the field of agriculture today, apart from countries where poor farmers are still exploited under large land tenure systems, even in countries where large land tenure systems have been dismantled and land distribution has progressed, the practice of cultivating farmland that has been handed down from generation to generation by self-employed farmers remains deeply rooted. So it cannot be said that capitalist agricultural management based on leased land, as theoretically assumed by Marx in Volume 3 of Capital, has spread yet.

However, self-employed farming is facing a life-or-death crisis due to the inherently weak management foundation, lack of successors, and pressure to "open the market" amid globalization. If this trend continues, the world's agriculture will eventually be left to commercial large-scale management, either directly by genetically engineered agro-food capital or indirect forms such as leased farm capital.

In contrast, communist agriculture is under the unitary and integrated management of the Agricultural Production Organization, which is a special case of the production business organization, on the premise that all land, including agricultural land, will be intensively managed by the Land Management Agency as described later.

In many industrialized countries, where farmland itself is declining, the Agricultural Production Organization will reclaim commercial land that has been thrown out by the abolition of commerce as new farmland, using advanced factory cultivation technology. Ultimately, it will establish a sustainable agricultural production system that follows farming methods that consider the environment and health.

Regarding the internal structure of the Agricultural Production Organization, the aforesaid principles regarding the production business organization are mostly applicable, but the employees of the Agricultural Production Organization are the agricultural workers who are engaged in farm work on each farm, apart from general clerical workers. Those who have traditionally run farms are hired by the Agricultural Production Organization as farm managers (a type of local manager responsible for the guidance and supervision of agricultural workers) upon request.

It should be noted that forestry and fisheries can also be considered for integration through production business organizations such as the Forestry Production Organization and the Fishery Production Organization in the same way as agriculture. 

Regarding fisheries in particular, it is necessary to promote planned fisheries that consider biodiversity while considering the finiteness of marine resources. Similarly, in the forestry industry, planned tree planting and felling with consideration given to the protection of forest resources is required. 

In that respect, it can be said that production activities in the forestry and fisheries fields are more suitable than agriculture for communalization through environmentally sustainable methods. 

Additionally remarking, since forestry and livestock farming are adjacent to agriculture, and it is possible to run side businesses, it is also worth considering the establishment of  the Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Farming Organization that encompasses the three fields.

4.5. Consumer business cooperative

The various production organizations that we have seen so far are all business entities involved in the production of goods and services themselves. But concerning consumption, too, we can conceive a kind of production organisation. That is the consumer business cooperative.

Today, consumption under modern capitalism is increasingly dominated by giant retail capital bearing the excellent capitalist name of the supermarket (=giant market), and it has become customary to procure almost all daily consumer goods related to food and clothing at supermarkets. It makes us a passive "consumer machine" of uniform consumer goods in exchange for the killer phrase "convenience."

On the other hand, the communist consumer business cooperative adopts the basic economic principle of "local production for local consumption," which is currently only a cover for political localism, and works on a broad local basis. It is a special distribution organization (service production organization) established in a unit of the local area such as the provincial area or the quasi-zone described later in Chapter 4. 

Each consumer business cooperative forms a network with other consumer goods production organizations that have been confirmed to be safe and reliable, including the aforementioned the Agricultural Production Organization, and supply various consumer goods free of charge through supply points directly managed by the those cooperatives. In addition to establishing new supply stations directly managed by the cooperatives, it would be good to take over and convert existing supermarkets and convenience stores.

A consumer business cooperative is a special business entity in which residents of each local area are automatically members, and the general meeting of members (composed of representatives chosen by lottery from among the members) is the supreme decision-making body.

 Unlike the aforementioned production cooperative, in the case of a consumer business cooperative in which consumers are members, it is necessary to establish a permanent workers' representative board separate from the general meeting of members, because the scheme in which workers are immediately cooperative members does not hold.

Although a consumer business cooperative is a "cooperative", it is different from self-managed enterprise, so their internal structure is similar to that of a larger production business corporation, not a production cooperative.

On Communim:Page11

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

4. New types of production organizations emerge.

4.1. Socially owned enterprise and self-managed enterprise

It is well known that in modern capitalist society centered on commodity-money exchange, the production organization that plays a central role in the production of commodities is the stock company. A joint-stock company is essentially a profit-making enterprise whose purpose is to accumulate capital through the acquisition of money, and is also a community of interest whose supreme command is to seek the interests of its shareholders, who are the actual owners of the enterprise.

Capitalism is the totality of product production and sales activities carried out by stock companies as individual business entities according to their management plans based on their respective profit calculations. However, in a communist society where commodity-money exchange is abolished, the system of joint-stock companies cannot be maintained. A new production organization suitable for a communist society will be born, but what kind of organization will it be?

Just to be sure, it cannot be a "state-owned company" that is often associated with communism. As will be discussed later in Chapter 4, communist society does not have the concept of a state, so "state ownership" is logically impossible.

That said, there is no absolute formula for how communist production organizations should be, but for the time being they can be roughly divided into two types: "socially owned enterprises" and "self-managed enterprises."

Here, a "socially owned enterprise" is a business entity with a strong public nature that is placed under social supervision as a public entity of society, and in plain words, it means "everyone's enterprise". As a mark of "social ownership", these enterprises are supervised by the representative body of the people (Commons' Convention), which we will see in Chapter 4.

However, the target industries for socially owned enterprises are not very wide, and are generally limited to key industries including transportation and telecommunications, agriculture, forestry and fisheries related to food, and pharmaceuticals related to health. And it almost overlaps with the scope of the sustainable planned economy outlined in the previous section.

On the other hand, a "self-managed enterprise" is a corpotation in which production workers are united and voluntarily develop a common business purpose, and is a kind of private company that is not subject to social supervision. But unlike capitalist private companies, management and labor are not separated, and the workers themselves are in charge of management, which is called "self-management".

The target industries for self-managed enterprises cover a wide range of industries other than those for socially owned enterprises mentioned above, but in terms of scale, “self-management” is realistically possible only for small and medium-sized enterprises with a maximum of less than 1,000 employees. 

4.2. Production business organization and production cooperative

From a legal point of view, the communist production organizations, which are broadly divided into the above two categories, correspond to a production business organization and a production cooperatives.

Of these, the production business organization is a legal entity corresponding to the above-mentioned socially owned enterprise. Specifically, it is a corporate body that is established for policy reasons as a single integrated business entity for each industry, such as the Steel Industry Organization, the Electric Power Industry Organization, the Automobile Industry Organization, and so on. These various organizations are also responsible for the planned economy, jointly devising and implementing economic plans through the Economic Planning Conference.

In contrast, the corporate body that corresponds to self-managed companies is the production cooperative. As mentioned above, this is a corporate form for small and medium enterprises with less than 1,000 employees (cooperative members), and can be freely established for industries that do not fall under the scope of the planned economy.

However, for large companies with more than 1,000 employees that are difficult to self-manage, a production business corporation is allowed as an intermediate form between the above-mentioned production business organization and production cooperative. It is not a socially owned enterprise per se, but is a large corporation with a structure similar to that of a production business organization in terms of its operation, as described in the next section. 

On the other hand, for micro enterprises with 20 or fewer employees, it would be possible to allow a small legal entity such as a cooperative labor group with a high degree of freedom in terms of internal management.

4.3. Companies and their internal structure

Here, I would like to take a closer look at the internal structure of the above communist corporate organizations.

First, communist enterprises, whether socially owned or self-managed, do not have individual corporate owners equivalent to shareholders in a joint-stock company, so they never have an institution such as a general meeting of shareholders as the supreme decision-making body.

In this regard, the highest decision-making body of the production business organisation as a socially owned enterprise is the staff general assembly. However, since it is practically difficult for a large-scale enterprise such as a production business organisation to have a general assembly with the participation of all employees, the members of the staff general assembly are to be delegates who are selected by lottery or vote from among the employees. 

On the other hand, the production business organization has a management committee as an operating body equivalent to the board of directors of a stock company, and the chairperson of the management committee as its representative assumes the CEO responsibility. The members of the management committee and its chairperson are elected for a fixed term of office at the staff general assembly.

A major difference from a joint-stock company is that there is a permanent workers' representative committee, which constantly monitors the activities of the management committee from the perspective of general worker in place of the staff general assembly and has the authority to agree or disagree with the decisions of the management committee on important matters.

It can be said that this is a joint decision system that replaces the difficult self-management in the production business organization. The members of the workers' representative committee and its chairperson are also elected for a fixed term at the staff general assembly.

In addition, the business audit committee must be established as a body to oversee the activities of the management committee mainly from the perspective of legal compliance, and the environmental audit committee must be established separately to oversee from the perspective of environmental sustainability. 

The members of the business audit committee and environmental audit committee (since the audit work is suitable for highly equal consultation, the position of chairperson is not appointed.) are also elected for a fixed term at the staff general assembly.

The above internal structure provisions regarding the production business organization are almost analogically applicable to the above-mentioned production business corporation, and they are respectively the management board (and the representative manager who is responsible for it) and the workers' representative board (and its chairperson), the business auditing board, and the environmental auditing board. It is almost the same that the members of each board are elected by the staff general assembly for a certain term of office.

On the other hand, the supreme decision-making body of the production cooperative, which is a self-managed enterprise, is the members' general meeting made up of all members (however, if the number of members exceeds 500, the introduction of a representative system at the general meeting is allowed.). The board of directors, which is composed of directors elected from among the cooperative members at the general meeting, is the body responsible for management.

However, since self-management is fundamental to production cooperatives, workers' representative bodies are not in principle established, and cooperative members directly supervise the activities of the board of directors through general meetings (however, it is permissible to set up a members' representative board.).

On the other hand, the production cooperative should also have at least three permanent auditors (no board of auditors), but at least one of them must be an environmental auditor.

In the case of the above-mentioned cooperative labor group, since it is a micro-enterprise form in which a few to a dozen member workers operate on a completely equal footing, there is no "organization" at all, and its activities can be freely developed through consultation by all members. However, even in this case, it is obligatory to appoint at least one standing auditor from among non-members.

On Communism:Page10

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

3. People retry the planned economy.

3.1. The old planned economy model

The reason why I deliberately use the word "retry" the planned economy model here is that it is still common knowledge both internationally and domestically that the planned economy model has already failed.

However, "retrying" here does not mean simply repeat the planned economy model under Soviet-style collectivism that actually failed. Rather, I would like to challenge the development of a new planned economy model based on new perspectives and methods. To do so, it is first necessary to review the perspectives and methods of the old planned economy model and organize them. 

The idea of the old planned economy model was to develop production activities centering on state-owned enterprises according to plans led by national planning agency, while maintaining the commodity-money exchange system. The aim was to eliminate the instability of the capitalist economy by adjusting supply and demand based on advance planning and to realize stable economic management.

Moreover, the planned economy model of the Soviet Union was characterized by long-term (five-year in principle) plans with extremely high production targets, aiming for rapid economic growth in order to "catch up with and overtake the United States," centered on the heavy industry sector.

However, the disruptions of supply-demand relations under an economic system based on commodity-money exchange is handled after the fact by at-random adjustments in the chain of commodity-money exchange by the so-called "invisible hand of God," in reality, the visible hand of man, and any attempt to plan and control them in advance may result in a breakdown of the plan and cause confusion.

In this regard, Marx sarcastically said in a personal letter, “The wit of bourgeois society (capitalist society--my note) lies in the fact that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of production at all.” However, the lack of such social regulation is the "mechanism" of capitalist society, not "wit".

In contrast, under the communist economic system in which the commodity-money exchange is abolished, it becomes possible to directly adjust the demand-supply relationship in advance without going through the commodity-money exchange, and this is also the only way to prevent overproduction and conversely underproduction. In this sense, it can be said that the planned economy model will show its true value only after the monetary economy is abolished.

3.2. Sustainable planned economy model

The true novelty of the new planned economy model lies first and foremost in a planned economy that puts the greatest emphasis on ecological sustainability – ecologically sustainable planned economy (hereafter abbreviated as sustainable planned economy). 

Mass production-mass distribution-mass disposal system that characterizes modern capitalism is no longer fundamentally capable of guaranteeing ecological sustainability, in terms of its high energy consumption, and as long as the capitalist mode of production continues, no matter how sophisticated environmental policies, it has at best the palliative effect of postponing a decisive environmental crisis and passing the bill on to future generations.

It is impossible to stay within the framework of capitalism and try to stop the cycle of mass production-mass disposal without touching the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism, viewed from a different angle, is a system of producing to dispose. Waste itself is a kind of reinvestment, and in this sense capitalism is also a kind of "exhaustion economy" in which capital accumulation continues through mass waste.

For this reason, the once discredited planned economy is returning to be rediscovered as a fundamentally ecologically sustainable economic model.

3.3. Outline of economic plan

In the actual planning, the key is strict supply setting based on specific environmental standards such as reduction targets for greenhouse gases and various hazardous substances.

In this regard, the modern capitalist economy is "desire (demand) economy" that mass-produces goods that clearly exceed actual demand in response to people's desires, and that the useful life of products is intentionally short. It is also a "renewal economy" where consumers are forced to replace their purchases frequently, which also leads to a huge a "high-energy economy" with enormous energy demand, especially in production processes.

In contrast, the new sustainable planned economy is a "supply economy" that adjusts demand according to the supply dictated by environmental sustainability, and a "durable economy" that makes things last as long as possible. It is therefore also a "low energy economy" with minimal energy demand.

However, planned economy is not implemented in all industrial sectors. The scope of the planned economy is basically industrial fields with a high environmental impact, though it will cover most of the core industrial fields such as steel, oil, electric power, shipbuilding, machinery industry, and transportation.

In addition, the scope of the planned economy includes sectors such as the automobile industry and the consumer electronics industry, where the consumption of their products tends to be environmentally burdensome. In these fields, it is necessary to step into planned production in terms of both quality and quantity of products.

Furthermore, in the transportation sector, which has a conspicuous upward trend in carbon dioxide emissions, at least for land freight transport, it is necessary to integrate truck transport with electric or hydrogen vehicles and rail transport as electrified as possible into a single business organization. After that, restriction of long-distance truck transport and revival of rail transport should be carried out systematically. 

In order to limit long-distance truck transportation, it is particularly meaningful to establish a system of local production for local consumption of consumer goods. In this regard, as will be touched on in the next section, consumer business cooperatives established in each local area will likely serve as the base for the local production for local consumption system.

On the other hand, in the field of daily consumer goods, with the exception of several essential commodities, a free production system is adopted as it is not subject to the planned economy. However, in a communist economy where the commodity-money exchange is abolished, in contrast to a capitalist economy where an oversupply of consumer goods tends to occur, it is assumed that there might be a tendency for an undersupply of consumer goods, resulting in a relative shortage of goods. 

Therefore, with regard to staple foods and other daily necessities, each production company is obliged to store surplus products that also serves as a stockpile for emergencies such as major disasters and pandemics. It is necessary to apply a limited planned economy to that extent in the field of daily consumer goods.

In contrast to the above, for special industrial fields that are directly related to health, such as pharmaceuticals, a special production plan is established based on neutral and scientifically rigorous clinical trials, separate from general economic plans. In addition, the primary industry sector, including agriculture, which is affected by natural conditions such as weather, will also be a separate plan from the general economic plan.

Ultimately, a sustainable planned economy whose ultimate goal is to conserve the global environment should be implemented on a global scale through a integrated community called World Commonwealth, which would replace the present United Nations. We will discuss this theme again in the final chapter.

3.4. Non-bureaucratic planning

By the way, the old economic plan of the former Soviet Union was a bureaucratic national plan led by government agencies, which led to unrealistic desk plans. Reflecting on this, the new economic plan will be drafted based on voluntary joint planning by the companies themselves in the areas of application of the plan.

Specifically, the Economic Planning Conference consisting of executives in charge of planning selected from each communist enterprize called production business organization corresponding to the industries included in the scope of the planned economy will be established, and this body will be directly responsible for formulating and implementing plans.

This economic plan is set on a relatively short-term three-year plan based on a scientific outlook for the environment, while placing its unified grounds on the outline of the world economic plan formulated by the World Commonwealth. It is a normative guide approved by the Commons' Convention, the representative body in each zone which constitutes loosely autonomous territory of the World Commonwealth, and promulgated and implemented with the force of law. However, unlike statutes, it is a flexible norm whose contents are verified every year and amended as necessary.

The reason why the economic plan is relatively short-term and subject to revision at any time is that the the target period of an economic plan, which is influenced by unpredictable environmental conditions, is thought to be limited to three years at most, and it is also necessary to have variable flexibility.

In addition, due to the nature of the non-bureaucratic plan, the Economic Planning Conference must be in charge of the planning, implementation, supervision of the implementation status, verification, and revision. 

In order to make this possible, a Research and Analysis Center will be attached to the Conference. At the Center, a large number of "environmental economic analysts" (public specialized qualifications for economic forecasting and analysis based on environmental impact assessments) need to be stationed as newly trained professionals, not bureaucrats, to enhance the support system for economic planning.

On Communism:Page9

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

2. People are freed from reign of money.

2.1. Liberation from exchange value

In the previous section, we argued that one of the characteristics of a communist society is that it does not produce commodities. In modern society, where commodity exchange is almost without exception converging on money exchange, the fact that commodities are no longer produced is almost synonymous with the abolition of the monetary system.

Before you are surprised again, let us think about what it means to abolish the monetary system. First, it means that we are freed from the notion of exchange value.

For example, suppose you bought a computer that costs $1,000. In this case, the computer is given an exchange value equivalent to $1,000, but this is not the same as whether the performance (usage value) of the personal computer is truly worth $1,000. It is a problem. Possively the computer is a defective product that breaks down frequently.

If the monetary system were to be abolished, the computer would no longer have a monetary value (price), but would be evaluated directly based on its performance. This is a use-value centric world.

Of course, even in a capitalist society, the use value is not completely ignored. A product with no use value worthy of the exchange value of $1,000 will not sell, and if you knowingly sell a defective product with no use value, you will be charged with fraud. Nevertheless, in capitalism, exchange value takes precedence over use value, and if we want to have the use value of the target commodity, we are required to exchange it for money equivalent to the exchange value. This is a world centered on exchange value.

In a society where a commodity economy has permeated every aspect, the purchase of any goods or services requires money equivalent to the exchange value. If you have no money, you can not even afford to buy a single bread, starving to death. This unavoidable consequence is accepted, although it is lamented. On the other hand, everything in this world depends on money, and it is also a fascinating world where you can buy anything with money.

Also, there has been an incessant stream of people who are willing to commit criminal acts for money, and money is involved in some form in most crimes, including property crimes such as theft, robbery, and fraud, as well as personal crimes such as murder. This is the capitalist state of affairs.

2.2. Freedom from reign of money

Since the system of money, which is representing exchange value, is not democratic in its nature, the money economy is a kind of despotic system. Such "monetary tyranny" is most clearly manifested in the field of finance.

Financial capital, which is the capital embodiment of money itself, plays the role of the general designer of the entire capitalist economy through loans and investments. On the other hand, the tyranny due to such a commanding role has been seen throughout the history of capitalism, and its undisciplined or sometimes uncontrollable behavior has often triggered serious economic crises.

In the financial crisis that triggered the Great Recession in 2008, people were unable to control the complex financial system that humans created themselves, and on the contrary, humans were dominated by the monstrous financial system and could be destroyed, just like Frankenstein. 

The abolition of the monetary system guarantees liberation from "monetary tyranny" in that it completely dismantles financial capital centered on commercial banks. 

This will be good news for many people not only in terms of liberation from the economic crisis caused by finance, but also in terms of liberation from debt as a more daily benefits. Because debt is, without a doubt, the most terrifying form of money that leads to bankruptcy for individuals, corporations and even public sectors like states and local governments.

Debt is terrifying because it takes the legal form of a claim and controls the debtor as the supreme power of money that can be exercised both as a legal power (court enforcement) and also as an illegal force (violent debt collection). Wouldn't it be fair to say that global liberation from such terrible power would serve the common good of mankind?

2.3. Difference between communism and socialism

It may safely be said that the difference between communism and socialism, which are often confused even today, is the existence or nonexistence of a monetary system.

In the past, socialism was advertised as aiming for an “equal, classless society.” But as long as the monetary system is maintained, complete equalization of income and assets under it is utterly impossible because money by its very nature never spreads evenly—the monetary system is not democratic in that sense. 

Therefore, "socialism" without abolishing the monetary system will not be able to eradicate class society. Even in the former Soviet Union, the leader of socialism in the 20th century, the often misunderstood "perfect equality" was not achieved at all. 

A wage system had been established, and various perks (including bribery) based on the Communist Party's bureaucratic privileges had created a disparity in living standards, including income disparities, between ordinary workers and Communist Party bureaucrats. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the reality was, simply put, a "socialist class society."

Therefore, it is unreasonable to analyze that such "equality" was the reason why the former Soviet system lost its vitality and competitiveness and was defeated by the capitalist camp, after misidentifying the former Soviet society as a "completely equal society."

At the same time, it is also unreasonable to equate or confuse communism, in which the monetary system, or more precisely, the commodity-money exchange economy, is abolished, with socialism, in which it is still preserved.

On Communism:Page8

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY --   PRODUCTION

Commodities production is almost abolished in communist society. How will our lives change as a result? How will production activities be carried out in a communist society?

1. There is no commodities production.

1.1. Not profit pursuit but social cooperation 

Marx writes in his famous book 1 of Capital, “The wealth of a society in which the capitalist mode of production is dominant appears as a gigantic collection of commodities, each of which appears as the basic form of that wealth.” This statement accurately describes the characteristics of capitalist society.

It is true that the leading role in capitalist society is not humans, but commodities. As is well known, all kinds of goods and services are produced and sold as commodities (merchandise), from breads to mobile phones, cars, houses, electricity, water, gas, medical care, welfare, and even sex services, and human beings depend heavily on commodities. It is the reality of capitalist society.

In contrast, in a communist society, goods and services are not produced as commodities. This is because, as mentioned in the previous chapter, communism is a society of social cooperation, that is, a society of mutual help.

The production of goods and services in the form of commodities is, in the first place, done for the capitalists to produce the commodities in order to sell them and convert them into money and accumulate wealth, and the practice is essentially a commercial activity.

However, the element of helping each other is also recognized in commercial activities. For example, the capitalists who produce and sell automobiles do so for others who want cars, while the capitalists who manufacture and deliver automobile parts supply them for the car manufacturers. On the other hand, the employees working for these capitalists provide labor for the capitalists, and in return the capitalists pay wages to support the workers' livelihoods.

Nevertheless, within the capitalist production cycle, people are usually unaware of these altruistic mutual aid relationships, and are only conscious of the commodities and money that flow through the cycle. In other words, capitalist society is primarily a society of profit-seeking = making money, and has the characteristic of showing the element of social cooperation = mutual help as a secondary.

In that sense, it can be said that a communist society simply brings out the element of social cooperation that is only secondary in a capitalist society. What will happen as a result?

1.2. Society where everything is free of charge

The most important change is that all goods and services will be produced and supplied not as commodities, but as "things themselves" without exchange value, and as a result, they will all be available for free.

For modern people, this would be a drastic change worthy of being called a cultural revolution. We, who need money as a means of exchange to buy even a single bread, may even feel guilty about being able to buy everything for free.

If you are a skeptical person, you may be concerned that this would lead to a controlled rationing of the supply of goods and services. Certainly, with regard to daily necessities, as will be discussed later, it is necessary to limit the number of purchases in order to prevent monopolization and a rush of demand, and to that extent it will be a kind of rationing system.

Even under capitalism, if there is a shortage of goods due to a rapid increase in demand, measures are necessary to prevent to be out of stock, such as limiting the quantity of goods purchased. So it can be said that this is only a relative difference.

When it comes to things like private cars, for example, under communism, the uniform mass production system will change to individual order production by consumers, and as a result, it will be possible to create a craftsman-like production system according to the type, color, and design that the consumer prefers.

On the other hand, commercial vehicles that are used by various offices and transportation facilities are mass-produced according to the economic plan described later, and are also delivered and updated free of charge.

1.3. A question on civilizational history

Thus under the communist system of production, the goods and services produced are stripped of their commodity form and are no longer offered for monetary exchange, even if the custom of bartering between individuals will remain. Commerce will cease to exist and commercial activity in principle will cease to exist. Instead, a system of gigantic social cooperation, so to speak, emerges.

Here, the following civilizational history question may be raised. Although commerce is an activity that humankind has continued diligently since prehistoric times before capitalism, is it possible to artificially abolish it completely?

Perhaps this question is more related to the perspective of "material civilization" that forms the civilization-historical substratum of capitalism, as posed by Fernand Braudel rather than by karl Marx. This paper does not have the space to tackle this far-reaching question head-on, but one thing that I can say is that the answer to this question will depend on the fundamental understanding of ecological sustainability, which is the condition for the existence of human society.

What is symbolized by capitalism is a society based on a material civilization that regards wealth as the highest value. In such a society, having-more or luxury becomes the ideal life. However, it is clear that such a society is no longer compatible with environmental sustainability.

On the other hand, there could be a society in which the ideal life is not about having more or luxury, but about being-better, that is, sufficiency. However, even in such a society, material production activities are indispensable to maintain human society, so it is unlikely that material civilization will be completely abandoned. However, the new material civilization to come will no longer be primarily about the pursuit of wealth.

On Communism:Page7

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 1: LIMITATIONS OF CAPITALISM

5. There is no need to fear communism.

5.1. Two ways of overcoming limits

In my previous narratives, I have argued that capitalism, which has "won" over collectivism, has not run amok or collapsed, but has reached its limits in some pathological ways. There are two major ways to overcome this capitalist limit.

One is to try to overcome the above-mentioned limitations within the framework of capitalism. If we compare this to medicine, it is a pharmacotherapy for the limitations of capitalism.

The welfare state model, which was once prevalent, also introduced livelihood security such as public pensions and insurance within the framework of capitalism in order to prevent the impoverishment of the working class that would occur when capitalism was adhered to in principle. It was a powerful medical therapy that enriched the system.

However, the welfare state model has nothing to do with the first fundamental limitation, which is related to environmental sustainability. Despite its own "sustainability" being questioned, so far no new medical therapies have been found that can replace the welfare state model.

In this regard, in recent years, a system concept called Universal Basic Income (hereinafter abbreviated as UBI), which aims to uniformly provide a fixed amount of money to all citizens as basic living expenses by the state sourced from taxes and other national treasury revenues has been advocated, and it is beginning to be tried in some countries.

In contrast to the conventional welfare state, in which the state provides income guarantees only in the event of unemployment, old age, illness, or certain other circumstances while maintaining the principle of "self-help" in terms of income, UBI is sometimes promoted as the "ultimate" livelihood security system that exceeds the welfare state model in that the state provides a fixed basic income to all citizens in a uniform manner regardless of such special circumstances. 

Of course, there is the problem that a historically large tax increase is indispensable to procure the huge amount of financial resources necessary for this ultimate big treat, but there is also a problem in the principle dimension that it violates one great law that can be called the charter of capitalism. 

The capitalist charter is "Earn, or die!". In other words, the capitalist principle of life is that as long as you are able to work, you must earn everything yourself, including your basic income - unless you have unearned income such as interest or rent.

Capitalism is a doctrine in which earnings, in other words, the ability to earn money, is everything. Therefore, if a person possesses this ability, he or she can enjoy a rich life on their own, but without it, no matter how virtuous and knowledgeable you may be, you must hit rock bottom and even starve to death.

On the other hand, UBI is a caring system that aims to support the earning ability with a public minimum income guarantee, but we cannot forget the fact that the calculating capitalists are preparing tactics such as piggyback wage cuts or staff dounsizing on the pretext of minimum income guaranteed by UBI. This is why some capital enterprize executives are also sympathetic to UBI.

As a source of funding for UBI, the capitalist state, which is the “committee in charge of the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”(Marx), would raise the consumption tax and the income tax, not the corporate tax hike, which increases the tax burden on capital. It is certain that a tax increase for the common people, such as lowering tax exemption conditions that increase the burden on low-income earners, rather than strengthening progressive taxation, which increases the burden on high-income earners, will come. It is highly doubtful, then, that UBI is the ultimate alternative to the welfare state model.

Thus, communism, which is the subject of this article, will emerge as another direction to overcome the limitations of capitalism. This is a surgical remedy for the limits of capitalism in the sense that the capitalist system itself is to be fundamentally removed.

Throughout history, mankind has tried various economic systems, and at this point it seems that they have largely settled on a capitalist economy. But a system that has never been tested--aside from the archaeological hypothesis of "primitive communism"--is true communism.

5.2. Image of communism

When you hears about the transition to communism, the negative image of deprivation of property rights and regimented society comes first. In the end, a negative campaign could start by bringing up the Great Purge by Stalin in the former Soviet Union or the Massacre by Cambodia's Khmer Rouge (Communist Party of Kampuchea) that shook the world.

However, true communism does not confiscate all personal property. As for the negative image of regimented society, it comes from intentionally or mistakenly confusing communism with Soviet-style socialism, more precisely speaking, collectivism.

A communist society is certainly an equal society. However, that “equality” is equality in basic food, clothing and housing. In other words, it is a society that cooperates so that everyone can meet basic needs such as food, clothing and housing without having a special means of exchange such as money. I do not think there are so many people who categorically reject such a society as regimented .

A communist society is a society of such social cooperation, in other words, a society of mutual help. Therefore, forced exclusion such as purges and massacres would not occur in a genuine communist society. Such a policy of violent exclusion was the destination of collectivism combined with political totalitarianism rather than communism in its proper sense.

Negative images of communism are mostly remnants of the anti-communist propaganda circulated by the Western camp, led mainly by the United States, during the Cold War era. Even today, after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they are occasionally retrieved from old archives as necessary.

Without being deceived by such propaganda, here we face up to the limits of capitalism that will become increasingly apparent towards the middle of the 21st century. And we would like to see communism, which will come after capitalism, not as a mere social theory, but in a more concrete and practical way, while contrasting it with capitalist reality. This task will be pursued sequentially in the following six chapters.

On Communism:Page6

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 1: LIMITATIONS OF CAPITALISM

4. Capitalism has been reaching its limits.

 Four Limits

Predicting that capitalism will not collapse easily does not mean unconditional optimism that capitalism has no limits and is eternal. Rather, capitalism today seems to have exposed its decisive limits in at least four critical ways.

 Limit (1): Environmental unsustainability

The most fundamental limit is that the global environment (ecosystem), which constitutes the conditions for the survival of human society itself, will not continue as long as the capitalist production system continues.

In particular, "global warming" is understood to be caused by an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of capitalist production activities since the industrial revolution, unlike past climate change.

It is also the "After the Banquet" of the capitalist economic growth unfolded by the advanced capitalist countries such as Western Europe, North America, and Japan. China led India, followed by Russia and Eastern Europe, which "returned" to capitalism, and the African continent, which is belatedly entering global capitalism with its natural resources as a weapon. Thus a wave of capitalist economic growth is brewing across the globe.

The global environment has been sufficiently damaged by the capitalist feast of less than a billion people in Western Europe, North America, and Japan. If all the rest of the world were to repeat the same thing, how much would the global environment be damaged? This is the terror of the unknown.

Precisely because people are already aware of this to some extent, in the era of global capitalism, global environmental issues have been raised with greater force than ever before. Still, as symbolized by the issue of greenhouse gas emission regulations, the interests of advanced countries that have already reached a certain stage of development and the ambitious emerging countries that are chasing and overtaking them tend to be in sharp conflict.

It is natural for emerging countries to want to avoid environmental regulations that could become a drag on their growing economic activities. However, the situation is the same for the developed countries. Since capitalism is originally a "quantity economy" in which capital accumulation is the self-purposed goal, It is reluctant, under any pretext, to any regulation that puts a brake on production or forces it to adopt costly production methods. Thus environmental regulation and capitalism must inherently clash.

Although the conventional debate on the global environment tends to be overly biased toward the so-called global warming problem, the global environmental problems facing modern society are not limited to that, including various other problems such as air, water, soil, acid rain, forests, hazardous substances, radiation protection, biodiversity, etc. So the time has come to deal with these pressing issues comprehensively and interrelatedly, and to formulate concrete numerical criteria that go beyond mere slogans.

To that end, it is necessary to adopt an ecologically sustainable planned economy that directly regulates not only the production method but also the amount of production while applying numerical environmental criteria. It needs to be introduced on a global scale.

However, such a thing is impossible as long as the capitalist production mode in which each country's capital enterprises develop production activities competitively based on individual management plans is maintained. At best, we have no choice but to limit ourselves to indirect regulations such as the imposition of an environmental tax. Even so, there are not a few countries that are hard to realize it due to the resistance of the economic world. Here, the limits of capitalism are so exposed that even apocalyptic prophecies of human extinction are not exaggerated.

  Limit (2): Instability of life

In recent years, the expansion of income inequality as a result of neo-liberalist or capital supremacist policies has often been criticized. But the problem is not the inequality itself. Even if there is an astronomical income disparity, humans will not be dissatisfied if they are able to live reasonably stable lives. This may explain part of the reason why the proletarian revolution has never occurred in the United States, where income disparities are large.

However, the globalization of capitalism has increased the instability of life beyond inequality. This is because, under global capitalism, the business cycles that are inherent to capitalism, which by nature avoids planned economies, continue to occur on a global scale, directly impacting the lives of the general public in each country.  The Great Recession of 2008 can be said to have been a typical and unprecedented event of the globalization of such life insecurity.

In the midst of this great situation of insecurity in daily life, job insecurity and old age insecurity are also contained within. In addition to the motor revolution, which had already been experienced long before globalization, the computer revolution, which coincided with and was driven by globalization, has increased the productivity of capitalist enterprises as a whole, and they no longer need as much labor as they did in the past. The development of knowledge-intensive industries has also reduced the amount of labor required.

Adding pressure to cut labor costs to respond to global competition, employment is dwindling. Under global capitalism, the phenomenon of "employmentless growth" that is constantly accompanied by this kind of employment instability - a broadly defined "anxiety" that includes unstable employment - will also become common.

On the other hand, public pensions, which are the main source of income for the majority of ordinary workers after retirement, were a product of an era when the average age was short and the rate of aging was low. However, at a time when the state's financial crisis is deepening, danger signals are beginning to appear in its sustainability. In addition, low-wage workers and long-term unemployed people who lack the means to pay pension premiums are likely to receive low pension benefits in the future or even lose them, further exacerbating their anxiety about their post-retirement lives.

This constant instability in people's lives will lead to restrained consumption by the general public, and the long-term economic stagnation due to sluggish sales will become a factor in chronic recession, weakening the strength of capitalism itself.

By the way, although emerging and developing countries have seen an overall improvement in living standards as a result of capitalist economic growth, they also suffer from economic vulnerabilities peculiar to emerging countries, and instability of life due to long-term political turmoil and deteriorating security. As a result, people are migrating to developed countries in large numbers in search of a more stable life. This is an paradoxical immigration phenomenon peculiar to modern capitalism, different from outbreak of refugees caused by starvation.

Furthermore, the increasing frequency of abnormal weather and the progress of rising sea levels are raising threats to life year by year. These threats bring about instability to all humankind, regardless of race or class, but it is already clear that capitalism cannot fundamentally solve this problem.

 Limit (3): Stagnation of technological innovation

Various technological innovations, such as scientific technology and information technology, have often been touted as a brilliant achievement of the developed  capitalism since the 19th century. Certainly, the fact cannot be wholly denied. However, all technologies supported by capitalism are limited to those that contribute to the expansion of profits of capitalist enterprises. In plain words, it is a technological innovation that becomes a means of making money.

Therefore, even if the idea of a technology itself is excellent, if the development or commercialization of the technology requires a large amount of cost, or if the beneficiary of the technology, and therefore the purchaser is a minority (for example, the disabled), it will be left behind from the capitalist technological innovation.

The development of information technology since the latter half of the 20th century has been praised, but in fact, it has reached a plateau in the 21st century, and it remains in the form of continuous improvement of existing technology. This is because technological development is facing limits in terms of cost issues and the size of the product market in the information technology field, which is a treasure trove of ideas.

Similarly, renewable energy technology and the development of products with a low environmental impact have been promoted as slogans, but have not made remarkable progress in the capitalist system that prioritizes cost and profit, and have plateaued.

On the other hand, even if the beneficiaries are limited, if the technology can aim for a high level of profit, innovation will be promoted even if it is anti-human. The most prominent of these is the development of high-tech weapons. Buyers of high-tech weapons are mostly limited to sovereign states, but since the customers have the largest purchasing power on earth, high-tech weapons are at the forefront of capitalist technological development as high-priced products with the largest profit per unit.

Ultimately, although capitalist technological innovation has progressed year by year solely for the sake of making money, it can be said that technological innovation as a whole has been forced to stagnate from the perspective of human history.

 Limit (4): Human desocialization

Capitalism stimulates the selfish side of human beings, and in particular, it maintains itself through human attachment to money as its ethos. Capitalist economic competition boils down to competition for money. Keynes has a point, albeit somewhat schematic, in trying to see the ethos of capitalism in "love of money" in contrast to communism, whose ethos is "service to society."

As I mentioned earlier, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as capitalism has become a kind of ideology in the midst of globalization, the selfish side of human beings has even been actively praised, and the number of egomaniacs has increased. On the other hand, the affluence of consumer life, the greatest field in which capitalism has triumphed over collectivism confused with communism, has cut human beings into individual consumption units and made them desocialized captives of commodities.

In general, humans in general have lost their sociality, which has led to the deterioration of their humanity as social animals. At the individual level, this promotes mental childishness. Egoistic humans with underdeveloped social skills perceive, like children, that the world revolves around them (me), even if they are adults. This phenomenon of enlargement of the "self" is almost always connected to the root of various modern social pathologies.

The loss of human sociality also promotes the dissolution of "society" at the social level, specifically the disintegration of local communities and even family relationships, which in turn leads to the social isolation of individuals. Even among capitalists, it has become to call for the restoration of "social bonds."

On Communism:Page5

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 1: LIMITATIONS OF CAPITALISM

3. Capitalism might not collapse.

3.1. Keynes'aphorism

The Great Recession of 2008 aroused pessimism about the "collapse of capitalism" even among those who had been touting the victory of global capitalism. However, will a situation like the final judgment of "the collapse of capitalism" really come?

This theory of the collapse of capitalism is reminiscent of Marx, who left an apocalyptic prophecy in the first volume of "Capitalism," saying, "The bell will ring announcing the end of capitalist private ownership." This God-like rhetoric could undermine the prestige of Marx's theory, which emphasized "science."

Rather, Keynes's aphorism, "Capitalism, so long as it is managed wisely, can be more efficient than any alternative economic organization ever seen,'' is more convincing. There is enough evidence to admit it.

In fact, even during the Great Recession, there were predictions that it would lead to a Great Depression at first, and there was a tumultuous mood as if it was the end of the world. The financial crisis that triggered the Great Recession, where various measures were swiftly taken, and the United States, the head of capitalism, violated a taboo by using methods such as injecting public funds into private capital and de facto nationalization. As a result of rushing to rescue the financial world and the automobile industry, which is a symbol of American capitalism, the worst situation was avoided for the time being.

Modern capitalism is no longer a pure laissez-faire economy, but should also be called a "coordinated economy," which includes monetary controls that are carried out regularly by the central bank and direct capital relief measures by the government during economic crises. It can be said that this system is still maintained under global capitalism, where deregulation and privatization have become the top priority, and that it has been proved once again that this system works quite effectively even in the face of large-scale economic crises.

3.2. Resilient capitalism

In addition, since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the capitalist economy has been repeatedly hit by economic crises on an international scale, and has a wealth of experience in overcoming them each time. In other words, it is like having a cheat sheet for crisis management. From these facts, it cannot be denied that the modern capitalist economy has become a crisis-resistant or resilient system.

Of course, in history, no economic system lasted forever. The slave economy, the feudal economy, the socialist economy, etc. have all ended. There is by no means evidence that capitalist economies are the only exception.

In a sense, the fact that the United States was forced to take measures such as the nationalization of private capital during the Great Recession might be a terminal event. And President Obama at the time, who led those taboo measures, might have been a person equivalent to General Secretary (later President) Gorbachev, who tried to partially introduce a market economy, which had been taboo in the Soviet Union.

In particular, the decline of financial capital and automobile capital, which were symbols of the U.S. economy, together with the depreciation of the dollar, are the beginning of the end of the great capitalism that the U.S. has embodied. Historically, it may have as much significance as the dissolution of the Soviet Union, whether or not the United States dissolves and the fifty states become independent.

If a situation that could truly be called the "collapse of capitalism" were to occur, it is highly likely that American financial capital would pull the trigger. In the second volume of Capital, Marx points out that the credit system, which promotes the material development of productive forces and the formation of the world market, simultaneously promotes crises and promotes the elements of the dismantling of the old mode of production. It can be said that this part was a correct diagnosis.

However, the capitalist economy has the most powerful self-preservation mechanism of any economic system in history, and it comes to mind that the capitalist economy will continue to exist almost indefinitely as long as humanity continues to adhere to it.

On Communism:Page4

Esperanto  French  Spanish

Chapter 1: LIMITATIONS OF CAPITALISM

2. Capitalism is not out of control.

2.1. The real image of global capitalism

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the spread of capitalism all over the world—global capitalism—has begun to show a qualitatively different aspect from the capitalism that preceded it.

In other words, global capitalism is the so-called deregulation and privatization (commercial capitalization) to expand economic freedom, the flexibility of the labor market through the deregulation of labor laws, and social security cost control measures that emphasize fiscal balance. It has come to openly advocate a neoliberal program and press governments to implement it.

This situation is sometimes criticized as "runaway capitalism." This criticism intensified in the wake of the 2008 global recession triggered by the financial crisis in the United States, the headquarters of capitalism. Did capitalism, intoxicated by its "victory" over collectivism, set off a revelry?

That is part of it. During the Cold War era, capitalism advertised itself as a rational economic system unrelated to socialism, communism, and other "ideologies." However, after the proclaimed "victory" against Soviet collectivism, capitalism began to absolutize itself as an ideology, and began to develop itself as a doctrine as if to say "there is no other way but capitalism." Neo-liberalism can be said to be the manifestation of such fundamentalization of capitalism.

The ideological aspect of neoliberalism is most clearly expressed in the axiom of shareholder supremacy, which holds that the distribution of profits to shareholders, the legal owners of capitalist companies (joint-stock companies), should be more important than the distribution of wages to workers, the employees of those companies.

But that is not all. Inherently, capitalism has an internal tendency toward a laissez-faire competitive economy. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this inherent tendency of capitalism has seemed to be reproduced as a historical reaction in the course of the process in which not only the Eastern European countries that were under the control of the former Soviet Union, but also emerging countries such as China and India have entered international capitalist mega-competition in earnest.

Therefore, it can be said that the trend of so-called neo-liberalism also has an ideological aspect as well as an aspect of economic strategy that corresponds to the inherent tendencies of capitalism.

In a bold simplification of the latter aspect, it is a tactical platform for the advanced capitalist countries to compete with the the late capitalist countries that emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Also,it is the platform that applies to the emerging countries themselves.

Since the middle of the 1990s, this neo-liberal strategy has already carved a history of nearly thirty years. It is about time to drop the adjective "neo-liberal" and change the name to "capital supremacism" in line with the fact that the freedom of enterprise is given top priority as the supreme value.

2.2. The pitfalls of the theory of "out-of-control capitalism"

In light of the above, it is somewhat problematic to use the word "runaway" to describe the development of global capitalism. Those who emphasize the "runaway" of capitalism seemingly want to believe that there could be a "capitalism with a human face" that is different from the one we are presented with. 

Perhaps what is assumed by those humanitarian capitalists is a modified form of capitalism that considers the lives of the working class. It was certainly a form of capitalism during the Cold War. However, the modified capitalism was the figure of capitalism, which was taken as a self-defense measure when it still felt the real threat of communist revolution. Now that the situation has changed and capitalism has realized that it no longer needs to wear heavy makeup, it has begun to expose its true face - the face of money.

Instead of facing this reality head-on, immersing yourself in nostalgia for the capitalism of the days when it were wearing heavy makeup can actually lead you into a pitfall. A significant example of this is the issue of deregulation of the labor market.

There are arguments—which are morally justifiable—that regulations should be tightened again in order to stabilize the status of workers again, for the reason that the deregulation of labor laws, which has been implemented as a program of capital supremacism, especially the expansion of so-called non-standard employment, has widened the income disparity among workers and led to poverty.

However, saving labor costs, that is, "exploitation," is the very essence of capitalist enterprise management. If labor laws were to be reinforced, capitalist companies would, for the time being, adopt a tactic of narrowing down the number of workers while proceeding with the standardization of the labor force. Naturally, this will lead to high unemployment, which could happen in countries with strict regulations on non-standard employment.

Not only that, but the business community will demand a relaxation of labor standards for regular workers, especially provisions regulating dismissal, as legal compensation for tightening regulations on non-regular employment. If this is not accepted, capitalist companies will likely resort to a strategy of hollowing out domestic industry by moving production bases overseas, where labor laws and regulations are lax and wages are low.

In any case, the tightening of labor market regulations runs the risk of having the opposite effect in terms of job creation. Considering this, I cannot help but think that the idea of modified capitalism, which denounces capital spremacism only morally and calls for its withdrawal, underestimates the nature of capitalism. It is impossible to reverse the wheels of history to push capitalism back to the nostalgic Cold War days before the dissolution of the Soviet Union.