Major SchoolS of MarxiSt EconoMicS in japan: hiStory and contEMporary dEvElopMEnt

: Marxist economics was introduced into Japan in the 1920s and diverged into several schools. These Marxist schools developed and evolved along with the socio-economic conditions of Japanese society. Japanese Marxism made significant achievements, even though it is facing various difficulties at present. This article offers an account of the formation, development and current quandary of Japanese Marxist economics, so that a comprehensive understanding and overview of Japanese Marxist economics can be obtained.

be "bourgeois democratic revolution," and it was asserted that this "bourgeois democratic revolution would be rapidly turned into a socialist revolution."In the draft of the 1931 Political Theses that was issued between those two set theses, however, the target was changed from "bourgeois democratic revolution" to "proletarian revolution broadly embracing bourgeois-democratic responsibilities."But the 1932 Theses issued the following year suddenly turned again to "bourgeois democratic revolution with a tendency to change perforce into a socialist revolution" as its ultimate goal.Under such a process of rapid changes in the strategic objectives of the Comintern, Japanese Marxists of the pre-war period eventually accepted the 1932 Theses in order to respond to the Comintern's call for revolutionary struggle, and they began to emphasize the remnants of feudalism in the capitalistic social structure of pre-war Japan.For example, Noro Eitarō (1900Eitarō ( -1934) ) stressed "the absolutism of the Imperial Regime and the semi-feudal landlord system in the rural areas" in his book History of the Development of Japanese Capitalism.On the other hand, Yamada Moritarō (1897Moritarō ( -1980) ) emphasized the historical role played by "semi-feudal land ownership i.e. the scattered farming in semi-serfdom" in pre-war Japan in Analysis of Japanese Capitalism (1934).Hirano Yoshitarō (1897Yoshitarō ( -1980) ) in his book Japanese Capitalist Social Institutions (1934), highlighted the "material basis" of pre-war Japan, namely, semi-serfdom relationships in terms of land rent, along with its "social basis," namely, the class relations of those engaged in semi-feudalistic and small-scale production in industry and agriculture.Under the editorship of Noro Eitarō, scholars holding this view published Nihon Shihon-shygi Hattatsu-shi Kōza (Symposium on the History of the Development of Japanese Capitalism) (Iwanami Shoten, 1932-33); they were later called "Kōza-ha" (the Kōza School) in academia.
Radically opposing the Kōza-ha were Inomata Tsunao  and other scholars involved in the journal Rōnō (Labor-Peasant), such as Yamakawa Hitoshi (1880-1958), Kushida Tamizō (1885-1934), Sakisaka Itsurō (1897-1985) etc. Inomata pointed to the fact that the so-called feudal element of absolutism is no more than "a form of institutional outlook" and mainly exists as "an ideological remnant," which "is losing a material class substance of its own."According to Inomata, "the conflict between the waning forces of absolutism and the entrenched bourgeoisie is not the essential component of the problem today, but rather the 'imperialist bourgeoisie' should be given the priority in Marxist analysis."So Inomata claimed that the proletariat must take on the historic task of bourgeois democratic revolution along with the socialist revolution.Since most of these scholars published articles in the journal Rōnō (Labor-Peasant), they were called the "Rōnō-ha" (Rōnō School).
The Kōza-ha and Rōnō-ha proposed different revolutionary strategies buttressed by their understanding of Japanese capitalism at that time.For example, on the premise of the existence of feudal remnants after the Meiji Restoration, the Kōza-ha advocated a "two-stage revolution," arguing that the socialist revolution should take place only after the capitalist revolution.In contrast, the Rōnō-ha stressed that more attention should be paid to bourgeois revolutionary aspects of the Meiji Restoration.They advocated a "one-stage revolution," which meant directly promoting the socialist revolution.
This debate was ultimately cut off by the repression of the Kōza-ha in the so-called "Com-Academy Incident" (1936) and of the Rōnō-ha during the so-called "Popular Front Incident" .After that, until Japan's defeat in World War II, Marxist social science and Marxist economics were completely silenced by strict police supervision and had to endure a long period of inactivity.
Research by all schools was aborted during this difficult time.
A school that rejected "-isms": the Uno School By the time of the fierce controversy between the Kōza-ha and the Rōnō-ha, Uno Kōzō (1897Kōzō ( -1977)), who was then teaching at Tohoku University, focused on the study of Capital from a unique perspective.He published a paper entitled "The Establishment of Capitalism and the Process of Decomposition of Rural Areas" (Chūō Kōron, November 1935).Although it was submerged by the controversies at that time and failed to attract any attention, it was of great significance in creating a new school of Marx's economics, which he did not consider a new school of Marxism per se.That is the Uno School, which was founded and developed by Uno Kōzō.
The unique character of Uno's theory is his view that economics should consist of three levels (or layers): "basic theory," "stage theory" and "empirical analysis" (i.e."three-stage theory").Of these, the assumption of "basic theory" should be given extra attention since it is the foundation of the whole project.Uno insisted that while studying Capital we should maintain the non-ideological and purescientific aspect of Marx's economics under the name of basic theory.He insisted that we must distinguish between political ideology and scientific theory in order to avoid committing to a party's official ideology.Later, the Uno School adhered to this apolitical attitude and regarded Marx's Capital as "a general equilibrium theory of capitalist society" (Furihata Setsuo).
When he explicates the late development of Japanese capitalism, Uno makes an original analysis.In his understanding, for latecomer capitalist countries, such as Japan and Germany, the most important thing is to note at which stage in the world history of capitalism they emerged as great powers-the stage of merchant capitalism, industrial capitalism, or financial capitalism-then we can analyze

the development of the Major Schools of Marxist Economics in postwar japan
After Japan's defeat in WWII, Japanese Marxists and Communists were released from prison, and Marxist economics was released from prohibition and witnessed a new period of development.The pre-war schools such as the Kōza-ha, the Rōnō-ha, and the Uno School recovered, and new schools emerged such as the Civil Society School and the Mathematical Marxist Economics School.

Affiliation with political parties: the development of the Kōza-ha and the Rōnō-ha
Immediately after the defeat of Japan, during the period from the 4th Party Congress of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) in 1945 to the 6th Party Congress in 1947, the theory of "peaceful revolution under occupation" put forth by Nosaka Sanzō  was widely accepted by the Kōza-ha, which had affiliated politically with the JCP.They inherited the analytical framework and political paradigm of the pre-war Kōza-ha, and accepted, by and large, the JCP's party line.The main idea of Nosaka's theory was that with the collapse of the semi-feudalistic regime, the powerful bloc of the financial capitalist, bureaucratic machine and the landowners was transferring hegemonic power from the pre-war Emperor's ruling group to the hands of the monopolistic capitalists; thus, the current goal was the bourgeois democratic revolution, after the completion of which the socialist revolution should be pursued.It also asserted that the socialist revolution should be advocated in non-dictatorial and non-violent ways and staged through peaceful, democratic means.Thus Nosaka propounded a theory of peaceful revolution in two-stages.
On the eve of the Korean War, the Japanese Communist Party was declared illegal by General MacArthur's command, so the leading members of the party went underground.Before this, the Comintern had criticized Nosaka by name for his theory of peaceful revolution, hence the Communist Party divided into two factions: the Shokan (Statement) Faction issued the official statement refuting the Comintern criticism, and the International Faction fully accepted the international, i.e. the Comintern's, criticism.Both factions had to endure arduous underground activities.The 1951 program, which was passed in this repressive environment (proposed at the 20th Central Committee and endorsed at the 5th National Consultative Conference) claimed basically that Japan was subordinated to US imperialism; it was the colony and satellite of the US, so its revolutionary strategy should be that of a colonized or satellite country, namely democratic revolution with the aim of national liberation.The 1951 program tactically denied the preceding assumption of peaceful revolution and issued clandestinely the "directive for military action" which declared that: "we must make preparation and action for an armed campaign."Following the party lines proclaimed in the 1951 program, many influential Marxist scholars planned and published the Symposium on Japanese Capitalism (Iwanami Shoten, 1953-95) as an authorized analysis of contemporary Japanese capitalism.Marxist economists such as Horie Masanori (1911-1975), Usami Seijirō (1915-1997), Ogura Hirokatsu (1902-1968), Inoue Harumaru (1908-1973) etc., wrote the main thesis of each volume.
The Rōnō-ha School, on the other hand, affiliated with another new political party, the Japanese Socialist Party, and they formed another center of postwar Marxist economics.Scholars who advocated the Democratic Popular Front strategy and formed the leftist faction of the Socialist Party drafted their own program in 1954, under the political leadership of Yamakawa Hitoshi and Sakisaka Itsurō.The program pointed out that although fascism had been defeated, the hegemony of monopoly capital was continuing, and it was ruling postwar Japan as a more benign dominating power.The postwar democratic revolution, whatever revolutionary glamour it had, was just a supplementary or temporary phase of the bourgeois revolution.So the strategic objective of Marxists in postwar Japan should be the socialist revolution by peaceful means, namely the "one-stage revolution."However, since the Socialist Party consisted of an amalgamation of left and right forces, there inevitably erupted a fierce battle over the political program (1949).The original strategy and analysis of the leftist camp was attacked by Morito Tatsuo , who stood on the right-wing side of social democracy, and Inamura Junzō , who belonged to the leftist wing of socialism, defended the leftists.Eventually this debate led to a split between the left and right factions in 1951.After that, the prestige of the Rōnō-ha School in the leftist camp of the Socialist Party was firmly established.
After the outbreak of the Korean War, Yamakawa Hitoshi, Sakisaka Itsurō, Ōuchi Hyōe (1988-1980), Okazaki Saburō (1907-1990), Takahashi Masao (1901-1995), Shimizu Shinzō (1913-1996), Takano Minoru (1901-1974) and others formed the Socialist Association in 1951.In 1954, the left wing of the Socialist Party, under the same situation of a party-split as in the Communist Party, published its 1954 Draft Program, which was written by Sakisaka Itsurō.The main analytical point of this program was that Japan was a highly developed capitalist country controlled by monopoly-finance capital, so the current strategic goal was a socialist revolution, which should be carried out peacefully and democratically.Then Simizu Shinzō proposed his Private Views (supported by Takano Minoru, the chief secretary of Sōhyō [General Council of Trade Unions of Japan]), which questioned the Draft Program.It pointed out that Japan was a colonial satellite, so its strategic objective should be national liberation, and this project should be directly connected with the socialist revolution.This perspective showed an amazing similarity to the recognition expressed in the 1951 Program of the Japanese Communist Party as far as the crucial issue of how to understand the status quo of postwar Japan was concerned.The private views of Shimizu Shinzō triggered a renewed controversy over the program.Shimizu and Takano eventually quit the Socialist Association, thus the unity and ideology of the Association were, ironically enough, even more consolidated.

Diverging from the mainstream: the development of the Uno School
Around that time, the scholars of the Uno School paid more attention to how to analyze the status quo of Japanese capitalism.Their style and method were uniquely different from those of other Marxist economists, with the particular emphasis specific to Uno theory.They tried to forge a modern theory of capitalism, namely the theory of state monopoly capitalism.The major figures and the main points of their arguments are as follows: Ōuchi Tsutomu (1918Tsutomu ( -2009) ) discussed the theory of the "managed currency system" in state monopoly capitalism.Ōuchi and his group took the historical change of capitalism after World War I as the decisive fact for understanding the unique condition of modern organized capitalism.They valued the managed currency system that was established in the 1930s and spoke highly of the implementation of fiscal policy under it.They also asserted the theoretical probability that this system could be used to avoid the occurrence of economic crises.Behind this unique proposition was the "labor commercialization" theory of the Uno School, which dealt with the managed currency system embedded in the process of labor exchange.The theory stated that if the value of currency gained by labor in the process of L-M were debased in the process of M-C, that is, if we can actively introduce an inflationary policy, then excess capital would be avoided by policy measures.
Katō Eiichi  studied the historical change of class relations from the standpoint of the Uno School.He noticed the compromising situation of the capitalist and the promising situation for the worker in almost all of the developed countries.This refers to the historic change in class relations, which seems "to guarantee equal rights in labor relations."How can we overcome the contradictions of labor relations?Katō answered this question by saying that we can see the main characteristic of modern capitalism through this dilemma.In his understanding, modern state monopoly capitalism found the means to solve the basic problem of the "contradiction" between capital and labor at the policy level by establishing "a minimum wage, maximum working hours, fundamental labor rights, and worker's protection." Watanabe Hiroshi (1931Hiroshi ( -1997) ) studied the development of modern capitalism by focusing on the "world agricultural problem" in the interwar period.He believed that the success of the Russian Revolution led to the establishment of the "Socialist Labor-Peasant Alliance."This provoked a sense of crisis among the ruling class in major European countries, so they turned themselves to protecting domestic agriculture.They pursued the so-called "agricultural self-sufficiency policy," which pushed those countries towards protectionism.Eventually, countries producing grains and investing in export crops, such as Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. faced an unfavorable market situation so that the export market quickly shrank.Protectionism spread to major industrial countries one by one, and every major power made haste to save its domestic agriculture, which only brought about the opposite result.
Furihata Setsuo (1930Setsuo ( -2009) ) focused his attention on the concept of the "automobile society" as the basic component of modern capitalist theory.Furihata argued that it is most important to identify the expression of the productive forces in modern capitalism.He paid particular attention to the technical aspects of the automobile industry such as conveyor systems and managerial techniques such as Taylorism and Fordism.By interpreting the highly developed productive forces as the foundation of modern capitalism, Furihata's arguments showed an amazing similarity with the structural reformer's way of thinking.

The birth of a new breed: the Civil Society School
Hirata Kiyoaki (1922Kiyoaki ( -1995) ) published the book Civil Society and Socialism in 1969, which asserted that Marxism should incorporate the notion of civil society as a positive element of a broader critical theory; it also insisted that the Marxist notion of civil society needed to be reconstructed under the new economic perspective embracing "the mode of production, transportation, consumption" and "the mode of reproduction" as well.He also proposed that there is an urgent need to rebuild the notion of socialism not only based on the concept of civil society, as opposed to establishing state ownership, but also by rehabilitating the concept of individuals in the discussion of socialism (according to Hirata, the notion of individual ownership was and is the key missing factor in the orthodox Marxist tradition).Since then, the scholars adhering to this view have been called the Civil Society School.
There was predictably a lot of overt criticism toward Hirata from orthodox Marxist economists.In response to this criticism, Hirata gradually changed his position and approached the French Regulation School as he deepened his contact with Alain Lipietz, Robert Boyer, Benjamin Coriat and many other young French economists whom he met by chance when he stayed in Paris.Hirata's disciples also joined the French Regulation School.From then on, the ideas and discussions that once flourished under the name of the Civil Society School became part of the Japanese Regulation School.

Introducing mathematics: the Mathematical Marxist Economics School
Offering formal and mathematical proofs for some Marxian theorems by using quantitative analysis was a major innovation in postwar Marxist economics.Okishio Nobuo (1927Nobuo ( -2003) ) along with Koshimura Shinzaburō  and some other figures initiated the mathematical study of Marxist economics in Japan.With these efforts, the Mathematical Marxist Economics School secured a firm position in Japanese academia.Okishio once gave a description of how he decided to study Marxist economics by mathematical methods: I started to learn Hicks, Keynes, Harrod and others at the early stages of my research, and also studied general equilibrium, macro-economics, economic dynamics, and then analyzed the economic phenomenon in-depth.Gradually, I realized that it was essential to analyze it in light of the social relations that were the basis of economics, so I began studying Marx's Capital; after that I found that applying mathematical methods to demonstrate the fundamental propositions in Capital was very often effective.(Okishio and Itō 1987: vi) In addition, Okishio was famous for proposing a "fundamental Marxian theorem," which stated that the profit margin would be positive only when the exploitation rate was positive, namely positive residual value was the condition of profit.He also developed the "Okishio theorem," which stated that when technological change develops from the initial state to a new one, the average profit margin increases on the assumption that the actual wage rate did not change.

the current Situation and difficulties of Major Schools of Marxist Economics in japan
The status of major schools The largest school of Marxist economics in Japan is known as the Orthodox Marxist School.Most scholars of this school are closely affiliated with the Japanese Communist Party.They inherited the academic legacy of the Kōza-ha.Their monthly magazine is Keizai (Economy) published by the Sin-nihon Syppan (New Japanese Publishers), and their representative academic associations include the Political Economy and Economic History Society, which had 985 members in 2011.(The Agrarian History Society, founded in 1948, of which the first president was Yamada Moritarō, changed its name to the Political Economy and Economic History Society in 2002.)The Japanese Society of Political Economy (founded in 1959) with 873 members in 2011, is the most comprehensive academic association of Marxist economists in Japan, encompassing the Uno School.In addition, there is the Japan Society for the Study of Credit Theory, which specializes in currency and finance studies.There are other study groups, such as the Marx-Engels Researchers' Association of Japan with its bulletin, Marx, Engels, Marxism; the Institute for Fundamental Political Economy, which publishes Letters on Economic Science; the Study Group on Monopoly Capitalism; and the Post-Cold War Study Group, etc. Scholars in various Marxist study groups have been increasingly active, especially since the outbreak of the financial crisis.Some of the Orthodox scholars, such as Imura Kiyoko have made a deeper analysis of the modern capitalist transformation and the historic mechanism that causes crises in their modern form.
Marxist economists who belong to the Rōnō-ha (which once became powerful in the Japanese Socialist Party by rallying around the Socialist Association) have lost their past glory after experiencing a series of crippling blows, such as the dissolution of the Council of Trade Unions of Japan (Nihon Rodo Kumiai Sohyogikai, or Sōhyō) in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the disintegration of the Socialist Party in 1996, etc.The Socialist Association, which was the leftist bastion of the Japanese Socialist Party, split into two factions, and both stopped using terminology like Marxism-Leninism.Both factions have been stagnant for many years.One of these two factions had proclaimed its intention to take over editorial responsibility for the journal Socialism.The journal Historical Materialism (Kawade Shobō, 1947-48, 1965-90), once published by the Socialist Association, ceased publication long ago.Since most of the active Marxist economists of the Rōnō-ha, based in Kyushu University, have now retired or died (such as Sakisaka Itsurō, Takahashi Masao, Kawaguti Takehiko, Kojima Tsunehiko), the influence of the Rōnō-ha is quite limited today.
Uno Kōzō and his students were critical of the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism from the earliest beginnings of their school.After the 1960s, this anti-Stalinist sentiment made a significant impact on the new left sentiment and radical student movement in particular.Furthermore, the school still exists as an academic clique in Tokyo University.Today, the Uno School is represented by Itō Makoto and Sekine Tomohiko.Their academic influence is quite powerful both inside and outside Japan.
As mentioned above, the Civil Society School was formed in the 1970s by Hirata Kiyoaki.Hirata and his students then turned to the French Regulation School.The school still retains a certain influence in academia today.
Finally there is the Mathematical Marxist Economics School.In 1987, Okishio and Itō Makoto collaborated in publishing the book Economic Theory and Contemporary Capitalism: Discussion by Means of Note Exchange (Iwanami Shoten, 1987), in which Okishio and Itō discussed nine topics including the ultimate goal of economics, wages and prices, investment, market institutions, economic crises or business cycles, technological innovation, the state, international aspects of the economy and socialism.They explored and discussed these topics from the perspective of both the Mathematical Marxist and the Uno schools interchangeably.However, after the death of Okishio in 2003, the influence of the school waned considerably.

The difficulties faced by the major schools
From the brief description of the current situation of the major schools, it can be concluded that Marxist economics in Japan is now confronted with an unfavorable situation for further development.The reasons for this can be explained by the following three factors.
Firstly, Marxist economics in Japan has long been encircled by the establishment and placed in a hostile environment.Marxism has been marginalized by the academic mainstream since its founding; thus, it has never enjoyed a favorable situation for its survival and development.After WWII, the Japanese economy developed rapidly, while Japan underwent a political and ideological turn towards conservatism and the anti-communist extremes of the 1950s.In the heyday of the Cold War, Japan started to revive and recover as an anti-communist country allied with the US.The political authority and ideological credibility of the Japanese Communist Party was greatly damaged by this encirclement.In this political and ideological environment, the public's view of Marxism and Marxist theory turned gradually from being sympathetic to hostile, even more so because people enjoyed the improvement in living conditions and accepted the establishment's misleading smear campaign.Moreover, there occurred the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, as well as huge turmoil in international politics.In recent decades, Marxist economics has endured a series of major blows.In addition, a large number of elderly Marxist academics are now approaching retirement age and even passing away.Thus, the problem of successfully passing on the knowledge and political practices of the retiring generation of Marxist scholars to a younger generation of Marxists is becoming increasingly serious.
Secondly, as far as the academic attitude of Marxist scholars is concerned, Marxists in Japan took a compromising posture toward the postwar regime, that is, they accepted the prevailing ideas and practices that the regime forced the people to accept.For example, the schools no longer mention Marxism-Leninism, and they use the term "Marx's economics" instead of "Marxist economics" and so on.It could be risky business to shift the Marxist stance from "ideological" to "realistic" because such a shift has to be done under the circumstances of constant distortion of Marxism by the establishment.The weakening of ideological faith of most Marxist researchers and the prevailing orientation toward careerism in the study of Marxist theory are other important reasons for the plight of the schools.Although there still remain political (Marxist) economics courses in many Japanese universities, most of the professors who teach these classes share a lack of ideological commitment compared with the former generation, and some even take these professorships merely as a means of livelihood.They do not even need to be Marxists, rather they are expected and compelled to be respectable professionals.Radical Marxist economics, where it still exists, is totally encircled both in the universities and in the broader cultural scene; it is becoming more and more difficult for it to survive.This situation makes the study of Marxist economics increasingly more scholastic and alienated from social reality.By increasing the sophistication of its methods and techniques, and distancing itself from the harsh realities of daily life, it may inevitably result in mere formalism and dogmatism.
Thirdly, Marxist economics in Japan is relatively backward with regard to international exchange and communication.Few works have been successfully transmitted to the academic world outside Japan, although many issues and topics have been energetically discussed and studied within the country.Many Marxist economists in academia are rather hesitant to transmit their views from Japan to the rest of the world.This makes it more difficult for Japanese Marxist economics to earn its proper place in the globalized academic world and even more difficult to convince the world inside and outside Japan of its value.Through the exchange of ideas with Marxist economists outside Japan, Japanese Marxist economists can find new opportunities for further development of their field.Marxist economists in Japan have begun to pursue these opportunities in recent years.For example, the Society of Political Economy established a new "Overseas Special Membership" scheme in 2011.Seven famous Marxist academics, including Professor Enfu Cheng from China and Professor Gérard Duménil of France, have been invited to give public lectures at the society's annual conference and to engage in academic exchanges with other members of the society.The Society wishes to open up its own discussions with the international community.
In summary, the several schools of Japanese Marxist economics have achieved important academic results so far, but with the drastic changes in recent decades, they now face many difficulties.However, with the economic downturn in Japan in the 1990s, especially the outbreak of the global financial crisis, as well as the many social conflicts inside and outside Japan, Marxist economics is now expected to re-emerge as the major critical platform for the radical critique of the World Review of Political Economy Vol. 4 No. 3 Fall 2013 how they developed in different ways in such different historical circumstances.Uno criticizes both the Kōza-ha and the Rōnō-ha for their lack of interest in this stage theory.