Reconstructing Marxian Theory of Ground Rent: Based on Japanese Development of Marxian Political Economy

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to reconstruct Marxian theory of ground rent in order to refurbish it as a fundamental theoretical framework of ecological Marxism. We make this attempt by the close examination of longstanding Japanese discussions on the rent theory among the Koza school, Rono school, and the Uno school, which have never been made available in English so far. By critically integrating Japanese preceding studies, Marxian theory of rent would be reinforced more effectively in analysing the class relation between the capitalist and the landowner, which is reflected in the formation of absolute rent. In addition, we use the price equations to formulate the rent formation and theoretically examine how the landowner performs as the third class. It is noteworthy that there is a case in which the conflict between the capitalist and the landowner takes the form of a confrontation about rent-seeking activities. In our two-sector model analysis, an intellectual property right in one sector can undermine the economic position of the landowners in the other sector, thereby fostering further destructive development of nature. Capitalist IP rent-seeking harms the environment not only directly but also through indirect causalities in the globally interrelated economy.

KEYWORDS:

• Marx
• rent theory
• Japanese Marxism
• ecological Marxism
• Kozo Uno

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Kozo Uno (1897–1977) was one of the most influential Marxian economists in Japan, who contributed to the original development of value theory, crisis theory, and others. Three of his monographs are currently available in English (Uno 1980; 2016; 2020). His influence is so large that the followers are called the Uno school, as we shall mention later. Among the above mentioned Japanese Marxian ecologists, Yoshio Tamanoi was strongly influenced by Uno’s political economy. Tamanoi’s distinction between the nature of agriculture and of industry derives from Uno, as well as from Polanyi (Tamanoi 1978, Chs. 1 and 10; Tamanoi 2020). However, it falls into the banal repetition of insisting that industrial capitalism and ecology are incompatible.

2 Establishing the monopoly rent is not Marx’s own contribution. It can also be found in A. Smith (1904, 146).

3 This recognition can also be found in Marx (2010c, 621).

4 Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the theoretical deduction of the landed property system is necessary. We can just presume the establishment of landed property to be a historical process, like primitive accumulation (Marx 2010c, 808). Some Marxists deem landed property not only as a precondition but also as the result of the capital-labour relation (Kay 1979, 49–50; Burkett 1999, 92–93).

5 Neo-Ricardians consider this problem in relation to the change in wages (Sraffa 1960; Kurz 1978; Mainwaring 1984).

6 This reversal of productivity is studied in Ehara (2018), in which all four conditions of production are supposed to be freely available for capitalists without limit by the landowners.

7 The meaning of “rent” in ”rentier capitalism” literature is overly broad and includes revenues that should not be identified as “rent” in a strict sense. For example, “financial rents” are interests and dividends, while “platform rents” and “contract rents” are profits on services. Advocates consequently exaggerate the expansion of “rentier capitalism,” though its increase in momentum is non-negligible. C. Vercellone (2013) and T. Yamamoto (2021) insist that profit in contemporary capitalism is becoming rent, as the boundaries between the two categories are becoming meaningless. However, the distinction is necessary if we are to examine the precise relation between rent and social reproduction.

8 The term “ecological imperialism” is taken from Clark and Foster (2009) rather than from Crosby (1986). While Crosby describes the unintended global transfer of organisms and the environmental impact of European colonialism during the formation of capitalism, Clark and Foster focus more on the capitalist exploitation of nature in the peripheries during developed capitalism, as illustrated by the plunder of guano.

9 Foster quotes Marx’s following passage in order to highlight capitalist activities regarding “metabolic rift” (2000, 156): “[t]he soil is to be a marketable commodity, and the exploitation of the soil is to be carried on according to the common commercial laws. There are to be manufacturers of food as well as manufacturers of twist and cottons, but no longer any lords of the land” (Marx 2010a, 333). This article of Marx, which first appeared on New-York Daily Tribune dated August 25, 1852, begins with the description of the capitalists who are “to eradicate the last arrogant remnants of feudal society” (333). In this context, the landowners who are to be eradicated should be taken as feudal landed aristocracy: the above passage does not mean that there should be no land-ownership worth considering in capitalist societies.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI [grant number colour JP 21K13266].