The completion of Section II of the MEGA got together all materials written by Marx necessary for a settlement of the so-called "plan-problem". In this paper the author tries to trace the process that led Marx to characterize Capital as "the general analysis of capital" in relation to "the method of political economy". At the end of 1862 Marx wrote in a letter to Kugelmann that he intended to publish an independent work, Capital. This work would include only "capital in general", which was expected to constitute Section 1 of Book I of "a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy". On the other hand, in a plan that Marx noted for Chapter 3 of the Section "Capital and Profit" during this time included two heads on "Formation of a General Rate of Profit, and Transformation of Commodity Values into Prices of Production". The discussions in these heads clearly suppose "many different capitals". As the "capital in general" in the original 6 Books plan of 1857-59 had strictly excluded "many capitals ", the word "capital in general" in the letter above undoubtedly differed in content from that of the earlier plan. In addition, Marx used the very term "capital in general" nowhere after p. 1288 of the Notebook XX, which was written in March to May 1863. Later, in Manuscript I of Book III of Capital written in 1864-1865, Marx characterized Capital as "the general analysis of capital"(MEGA^2 II/4.2, S. 305)or "the general investigation of capitalist production"(MEGA^2 II/4.2, S. 215). "Particularity" or "singularity" as distinguished from "generality" of "capital in general" signifies "particular capitals"(concurrence)or "singular capitals"(credit). There-fore using the term "generality" this time, Marx strictly limits the object of his analysis or description to "the general". On the other hand, "particularity" as distinguished from "generality" in "the general analysis of capital" and "the general investigation of capitalist production" is a "particular analysis" or "particular investigation", so both of these expressions mean that the examination or description is on a general level. In his "Introduction" to the Grundrisse Marx explained "the correct scientific method" of description, i. e. the "way" through which the "abstract determinations" upon the object viz. "the real subject outside the mind" proceeds "to the reproduction of the concrete" and thus reproduces the object as "the concrete totality" in the thinking mind. From the point of view of this "method" the distinction between "capital in general" and "the general analysis of capital" is obvious. In the case of the former, the "reproduction" of "the concrete totality" viz. capital still remains on the middle of the way and could not be completed without advancement to the "particularity"(concurrence)and the "singularity"(credit). In the case of the latter, however, the analysis is completed by the description of "the varied forms assumed by capital in the course of its development [Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesses]", yet it still remains on a general level. Thus, when Marx used the word "capital in general" at the end of 1862, he used it with a different meaning from the earlier one. This usage was a trigger and a precursor to the process through which Marx's work took off its corset -"capital in general"-, which tightly constricted only a part of the body, in order to put on a loose garment -"the general analysis of capital"- which wraps the whole body as

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

　私はシステム・アプローチを社会体制に無関係なものとは考えない．しかしそのアプローチに体制という言葉が出てこないからマルクス主義の理論にとって無縁なものとも考えない．社会主義という規定性に立脚してシステム・アプローチは理論的にも実践的にも内容豊富な将来をはらんでいると考える．論文ではイデオロギー的問題（ポグダノフ）に交錯させて，社会主義社会（ソ連社会）の体系的性格を明らかにすることを試みた．

抄録全体を表示

Since the Russian Revolution, the public has considered socialism to refer to the Soviet Union model of socialism. This has become the orthodox point of view. But the Soviet model of socialism is state socialism. This state socialism is not Karl Marx's socialism. Then what is Marx's socialism? This Paper will attempt to elucidate the following points concerning the above question. The first is that Marx's socialism is association socialism, -that is, cooperative socialism-related to the lineage of thought of Robert Owen. The second is that the necessity of cooperative socialism is an inevitable result of cooperation, or in other words, socialization of labor, based on the development of great industry since the Industrial Revolution. The third is that the advantages of a worker's cooperative factory, the core of cooperative socialism, are found especially in the possession of extra surplus value caused by economy in the appropriation of raw materials and other constant capital. The fourth is that the transition from capitalism to cooperative socialism is prepared by efforts to create cooperative factories and cooperative stores on a national scale through national centers concentrating extra surplus value and the savings of the working class. The fifth is that the spirit or principle guiding the whole cooperative should be the idea that the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. In my view, with characteristics such as these Marx's cooperative socialism can be regarded as a possible starting point for the restoration and regeneration of socialism in the 21st century.

抄録全体を表示

In most of Marx' important works, the concept Assoziation apperes as the core concept of his theory of socialism, which he viewed as overcoming capitalism. This theory, one of the constituent parts of Marxism, has not been investigated enough, and therefore his conception of Assoziation, as well as those of Kontrolle and Verkehr, has not been analysed as such.
His heritage from French utopian sociolism can be found in this theory, but this was reconstructed in his historico-materialistic setting, Marx' Assoziation is relevant to Saint-Simon's conception rather than to Fourier's but Marx treated Assoziation as the socialist relation of production. By the socialist revolution Assoziation would arrive at its full realization.
But Marx did not consider it as possible only after revolution. The cooperation and labor movements in the capitalist world are its prototypes and the struggle for the workingmen's control of production will lead to the essential realization of it. I relate this development of Assoziation to the concept Verkehr, which had vanished midway and was thereafter revived in the organization theory of the International.
This is an attemt to establish group theory in Marxist sociology.

抄録全体を表示