Marx’s dialogue with Aristotle on the concept of value in the third section on the value-form in the first chapter of Capital presents us with both attractive and puzzling theoretical points. This article begins with a reexamination of the significance of the dialogue, so as to clarify Marx’s originality in dualizing the concept of value into the forms and the substance of value. Then, Kozo Uno’s theoretical intervention on Marx’s dialogue with Aristotle is introduced. The dialogue is thus converted into a three-cornered talk among three giant theoreticians. Brilliant debates among Aristotle, Marx and Uno would lead us to reconsider the evolution of the concept of value and its historical ground. This issue is surely related with the problem of how to understand the historically specific nature of market economy and capitalist economy. It would also inspire anew a methodological relationship between historical materialism and the basic theories of Marxian political economy.

The article aims to show that the capitalist mode of production has begun to lose its productivity and historical base due to the rising domination of unproductive capitals at the expense of capital in general and that such a self-destructive process should be explained as the result of the declining productivity of capitalism (not capital productivity), which is embedded in the definition of capitalist commodity production and surplus rather than the tendential fall in the rate of profit. It argues that such a structural problem cannot be solved thanks to the newly industrializing regions in the world. The article re-conceptualizes the internal contradictions and dynamics of capital as well as Lenin’s conception of finance capital.

Two main theories exist about crisis: the Keynesian and the Marxist one. In this article, we try to analyze what can be the pertinence of the Keynesian analysis in a Marxist perspective. Keynes was in favor of regulated capitalism, not for a change of society. His main task as he defines it for himself was to find everything which can save the capitalist system. But his vision is fundamentally a short term one. Then he proposes a revival of investments, if not by private businessmen, by the State. But the effects, because he neglects the long term, are no new and durable growth and the development of public debt. It’s why Keynes’s theory cannot really solve crisis.

The euro crisis reveals that, under imperialist conditions, oppressor nations developed and they are oppressing other nations. Less money capital of “rentiers” and “usurers” finds its way into the sphere of production to extract surplus value, but circulates in the financial sector as “fictitious capital” instead. The financial crisis shows where wealth is produced and how the capitalist crisis starting in the sphere of production, penetrated the financial sector and from there the most powerful EU states too. To rescue the rich, governments try to pass on the losses to the working people and the poor. The imperialist states try to pass on the burden to the weaker states, denying their national sovereignty. When the working class and the peoples organize resistance, the struggle amongst monopolies and national states over sharing the wealth and passing on the losses becomes fierce. The danger of fascism and war grows.

Several recent editions of major mainstream economics textbooks list various causes of the 2007–09 global recession (also known as the “Great Recession”), which mostly include the following factors: lower mortgage lending standards, central banks keeping interest rates low, consumers borrowing too much money because of rising home prices, government agencies and policies encouraging home ownership and encouraging lenders to take on more risk, and a glut of savings from China and developing nations which fueled investments, current account deficits, and speculation in various global markets, especially US mortgage backed securities. These in turn drove up home prices in the United States and elsewhere and helped to fuel a rise in consumer debt in many nations. Meanwhile, this article’s research has found that some heterodox economists and heterodox publications have raised these issues in addition to the issues of stagnant or falling wages/income and the growth of the financial, insurance and real estate sectors of most advanced capitalist nations as possible causes for the increase in consumer debt prior to the Great Recession. These last two factors, however, are mostly ignored in mainstream writings. To compare the validity of the claims of mainstream and heterodox views, econometric analysis is employed using data from the last two decades from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. The heterodox and radical views seem to have some statistical support on their side and probably should not be ignored.

The current economic crisis in the US has generated the greatest popular discontent with the system and from that possible potential for radical change since World War II. This article looks at the Marxist tradition for generating revolutionary demands, including the essential issue of avoiding sterile revolutionary demands, and what distinguishes revolutionary demands from the socially more common progressive reformist demands. It then considers this issue specifically in the particular context of the US today of a working class that has been almost entirely demobilized for three decades, and largely politically disarmed since World War II. It specifically considers an important progressive set of economic demands that was issued early in the crisis, and compares these with a few recently issued demands that come out of an analysis of the crisis by revolutionaries who are seeking to begin to mobilize the working class to the project of transcending capitalism. The article ends with some preliminary proposals for extending these latter demands, in the approach of Marx, Engels and Lenin, more broadly to the current crisis.

The Free Software/Open Source movements have not only challenged the proprietary software, but have also inspired many other movements against intellectual monopoly far beyond the software world, challenging the IPR dogma as a whole. However, these have had less influence in China thus far, though there has been a rapid growth of free/open source software in China. This article argues that China now needs a different voice against the IPR dogma and should make a contribution to the international effort against intellectual monopoly, and the software industry could be where to start. On one hand, China should take further measures to promote the development of free/open source software. On the other hand, China needs to scrutinize and reform relevant economic and legal systems and adjust strategy for international negotiations, strengthening antitrust enforcement against software monopoly and taking a tough stance against software patents in international community.

Marx for the 21st Century, a collection of 14 essays by Japanese scholars, is not only about the relevance of Marx today, but also about Marx Studies, Marx-reception and Marxology in Japan. The themes, thinkers and texts discussed in this volume include: modernity, socialism, theory of history, original accumulation of capital, time sovereignty, distributive justice, environmental problems, labor money, civil/civilized society, Keynesianisms, World Systems Theory, John Stuart Mill, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Karl Marx, Max Weber, the Communist Manifesto, and The German Ideology. This publication provides some very interesting glimpses of Marx scholarship in Japan