シホンロン ダイ2ブ ダイ8 ソウコウ ブブン ニオイテ マルクス ワ ナニ オ コウサツ シテイルカ

There has been a long debate on what kind of systematic theory of crisis Karl Marx was attempting to develop. A key issue in this debate has been the relation between the theory of reproduction and the theory of crisis. Recently, this debate has been reignited by Professors Ryozo Tomizuka and Teinosuke Otani with a focus on two central questions. The first question concerns the relation between the theory of reproduction in Marx\u27s Das Kapital Volume II Section 3 and disturbances in the process of reproduction". Tomizuka has argued that Marx was attempting to discuss disturbances in the process of reproduction" in the theory of reproduction in Das Kapital Volume II Section 3. On the other hand, Otani has argued that Marx was attempting to discuss disturbances in the process of reproduction" in Das Kapital Volume III Chapter 7"; and that Marx was not discussing disturbances in the process or reproduction" in the theory of reproduction in Das Kapital Volume II Section 3. The second question concerns the relation between the theory of reproduction in Das Kapital Volume II Section 3 and the so-called internal contradiction." Tomizuka has argued that the internal contradiction" should have been discussed in the theory of reproduction in Das Kapital Volume II Section 3. As opposed to this, Otani has argued that Marx had no intention of discussing the internal contradiction" as one of the central themes in the theory of reproduction in Das Kapital Volume II Section 3. To properly evaluate this debate, I believe it is necessary to understand as accurately as possible the contents of the manuscript of Das Kapital Volume II Chapter 21: Accumulation and Reproduction on an Expanded Scale"(Manuscript VIII" pp. 46-71), which constitutes an important source in this debate. For this purpose, in this paper, I have followed as faithfully as possible the flow of the discussions contained in Manuscript VIII, and have endeavored to confirm what and how Marx was examining in Manuscript VIII and what results he derived from his analysis. Based on the outcome of this confirmatory process, I next examined whether the problems of the so-called internal contradiction" and disturbances in the process of reproduction" were treated by Marx as central themes in the manuscript of Das Kapital Volume II Chapter 21: Accumulation and Reproduction on an Expanded Scale"(Manuscript VIII" pp. 46-71). As a result, I arrived at the following conclusion. The problems of the so-called internal contradiction" and disturbances in the process of reproduction" were not treated by Marx as central themes in the manuscript of Das Kapital Volume II Chapter 21: Accumulation and Reproduction on an Expanded Scale"(Manuscript VIII" pp. 46-71)

マルクス ニオケル サイセイサンロン ト キョウコウロン ケイエイガクブ ソウセツ 30シュウネン キネンゴウ

In this paper, we examined arguments concerning Marx’s discussion of socalled “internal contradiction” and “disturbances in the process of reproduction” in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3, the Theory of Reproduction, and clarified the following matters. First, regarding the question of whether the issue of “disturbances in the process of reproduction” should be discussed in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3, the Theory of Reproduction, Professors Ryozo Tomizuka and Teinosuke Otani both argue that Marx was attempting to discuss the issue of “disturbances in the process of reproduction.” However, their views differ completely on the how the issue of “disturbances in the process of reproduction” was being attempted to be discussed in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3, the Theory of Reproduction. Merely presenting the question of whether or not “disturbances in the process of reproduction” was discussed in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3 without any reference to how and from what perspective such a question is to be discussed results in arguments that are devoid of content. Second, regarding the question of whether so-called “internal contradiction” constitutes an issue that should be discussed in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3, a major gap exists in the views of Tomizuka and Otani. This difference of opinion is attributable to the difference in the interpretation of the meaning of the socalled “memorandum” appearing in footnote 32 of Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 2. Tomizuka argued that the “memorandum” in footnote 32 refers to the “contradiction between production and consumption” and belongs in the “next section:” that is, Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3. As opposed to this, Otani argued that the text in question does not contain any indication that the issue of socalled “internal contradiction” belongs in Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3. This difference in opinion is rooted in the question of whether the “nie” appearing in footnote 32 of the Engels edition of Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3 represents the reading of the manuscript which correctly reflects Marx’s intent, or whether the manuscript should be read as “nur” to correctly reflect Marx’s thinking. Tomizuka argued that the intent of Marx’s argument can be properly understood only if the text is read as it appears in the Engels edition. Based on this position, he claimed that the “memorandum” does contain references to the so-called “internal contradiction” issue and that Marx believed this to be an issue belonging to Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3. On the other hand, Otani argued that the “nie” in the Engels edition of Das Kapital represented an error in reading and did not correctly reflect Marx’s intent; that “nie” should be correctly read as “nur;”and that the “memorandum” was “not an explanation of ‘internal contradiction’” but rather a discussion of “restriction of production due to the realization of surplus value.” To restate: the difference in the two positions reverts to whether the “nie” appearing in footnote 32 of the Engels edition of Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 2 should be accepted as it is to reflect Marx’s intent, or whether the “nie” in footnote 32 of the Engels edition of Das Kapital Volume 2 Section 3 should be changed to “nur” in understanding Marx’s intent. In order to arrive at the ultimate source of this disagreement, we undertook to examine in detail the grounds of the Tomizuka’s assertion and arrived at the following conclusions. The question is not a matter of correct reading of the text and textual interpretation wherein either “nie” or “nur” can be determined to be correct. The key question concerns what should be written in the “memorandum” and the difference in Tomizuka’s and Otani’s understanding of the theory of reproduction. Hence, we have returned to the initial issue in attempting to respond to the question of “nie” or “nur.