交換過程と価値形態 : 青木孝平氏の価値形態論をめぐって

抄録

This article reviews a theory of value form argued by Mr.Aoki Kohei. Section I, we try to clarify Mr.Aoki's complicated discussion about the theories of value form and of exchange process considered by Marx and Uno Kozo. At first, in "Estimation of the theories of value form and of exchange process", we survey Mr.Aoki's view upon preceding theorists. Marx's theory of value form premised the dogma of labor value. On the contrary, Uno reconstituted the theory of value form without the dogma of labor value. But on the other hand, he reduced the logic of the world of "commodity language" in the theory of value form into the logic of a world of "human language" in the theory of exchange process. Mr.Aoki estimates that point negative. Secondly,in "On desire of commodity <own>ers", we survey Mr.Aoki's argument almost depending on the discussion of Mr.Takumi Mitsuhiko that claims the asymmetry between relative value form and equivalent form can be explained without desire of commodity owners. Thirdly,in "Ideal expression of value and value realization carried through purchases", we inspect Mr.Aoki's view about the issues posed by Uno concerned with a desire of commodity owners, and concerned with a relationship between value expression only in owners' ideas and value realization carried through its real purchases.Then a plot of Mr.Aoki's theory of value form is clarified. It is the theory of value form that is completely non personal-subjective and structuralistic, that is without both Marx's "labor subject" and Uno's "own subject". Fourthly, in "The theory of value form as a make-up theory of private propriet(or)", we survey his theory that a task of the theory of value form is investigation of such a structural mechanism that commodity possesion is converted into private property by purchasing commodity with money. Section II "About the conversion of possession into private property", we inspect Mr, Aoki's arguments critically surveyed in section I. Firstly, in "Doubts about the make-up theory of private propriet<or> by Mr.Aoki", we inspect some points. (1)Whether is money merely possessed or privately owned that belonged to whom purchased commodity with it ? At the beginning if money is privately owned, where and how did it come into effect such a 'right' title? (2)As a evidence of his argument, Mr.Aoki mentions 'rule of public confidence', that is secured by civil law in every country. But it is a historically formed institution in England during 13c and 16c. So it has no relation to such a logic that private property is formed by purchasing with money. Secondly, in "On 'dual Marx' about the theory of property", we reexamine his arbitrary interpretation textually. He claims that there was 'Marx as a liberal' and 'Marx as a communitarian'. His interpretation about 'dual Marx' leads his argument of theory of value form to go round and round and get nowhere. SectionIII "Substitute for conclusion; direction of the theory of exchange process and value form", firstly in "Suggestion from Mr.Aoki's theory of value form", we reconfirm some acceptable points in his arguments. Secondly in "Direction of the theory of exchange process and value form", we give outlines of reconstitution plan on the explanation of exchange process and of value form. Marx and Uno had multiplex problematics. So we must resolve their complexes and totally reconstitute them. This reconstitution involves also both methodlogies suitable to each occasion: behavioristic approach and structuralistic approach.