What is the significance of Part VI "Wages" in Karl Marx's Capital (Vol. 1) ? Is it a supplement to the preceding surplus-value-theory (Part HI-Part V), or an intermediation between surplus-value-theory and accumulation-theory (Part VII)? This is the first problem to be argued in this paper. In the first edition of Capital (1867), this wages-theory was arranged in Section 4 of Chapter V (later Part V). But since the second edition (1872-73), the wages-theory has been arranged in one independent part (Part VI). Why was the constitution of Capital modified? This is the second problem. It seems reasonable to suppose that the inquiry into the second problem gives a key to the first problem. We shall concentrate on the significance of the wages-theory in the first edition. The wages-theory in the first edition was a supplement to Chapter V (later Part V). We can clearly see the birth of the wages-theory in the "manuscript 1861/63". In this manuscript Marx studied some changes of magnitude in the value of labour-power and in surplus-value, and he inquired further into how these changes were reflected in time-wages. Therefore in the first edition, the wages-theory was a supplement to Chapter V, above all to Section 2 "Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in Surplus-Value". During the revision of Capital, Marx retouched the wages-theory. A new content was added to Chapter XX "National Differences of Wages". The content runs as follows: According to the development of capitalistic production, the intensity of labour increases in general, and the ratio of the surplus-value historically increases. With this revision as a turning point, the wages-theory has had the significance not only as a supplement of Part V, but also as a supplement for the whole parts of the surplus-value-theory (Part HI-Part V). And in order to express this new significance, Marx modified the constitution of Capital.

View full abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyse the process of the consolidation of reginal banks in Fukushima prefecture in the interwarperiod from the point of view of their party problem. As the premise of the analysis of bank's party problem, the economic development of Nakadori region in World War I period is analysed. In paticular, Asaka and Shintatsu's economic developments were conspicuous. The development of Asaka owed to the advances of capitals from outside Fukushima. In contrast, that of Shintatsu owed to silk-related industries such as silk and "Habutae". According to the difference of developments of both regions, the enterprisers had defferent characters. Man-uemon HASHIMOYO, who was the chief enterpriser of Asaka, was strongly associated with capitals from outside Fukushima through electricity-generation, and belonged to Kenseikai-party. Syutaro YOSHINO, who was the chief enterpriser of Shintatsu, was strongly associated with silk and "Habutae". He belonged to Seiyukai-party, because it carried out the policy of consolidation of silk factories. Because of the struggle for the right to use Asaka-sosui, prefectural office's the relocation, and the different ideas about fiscal policy by these parties, the policy of consolidation of banks failed in the 1920s. However, owing to reconciliation of both parties through the Syowa-crises, and the crushs of big banks of both parties, non-political Koriyama-syogyo bank emerged as the core of the consolidation. And the Toho bank was born in 1941.

View full abstract

The Economic growth of East Asia, after the Cold War, extended to China and Vietnam, and the rise of foreign direct investment and trade in intraregion would intensify mutual interdependence. With escalation of income by rapid economic growth, recently, soaring demand of durable consumer goods, such a passenger car, drove up material, machinery and equipment products and trade in East Asia. The aim of this paper is to analyze the production and trade structure, motor vehicle, steel and machine tool, in East Asia. In the case of microelectronics industry, the global division of labor is concentrated in the information industry of the United States. But, in the case of machine industry. The United States, Japan and EU are engaged in cutthroat competition in East Asian market. Now, a strong likelihood exists that chance to introduce machine industry will be taken in the 1990s. However, in machine production, East Asian countries have to innovate various technology. For that, ironically, they need a helping handfrom developed countries, Japan. Add it all up, and it means that ultimately East Asian countries could slip further into a pattern of riding on Japan's coattails.

View full abstract