何度読んでも、得るものがある。資本論は本当に偉大な本である。そこに、資本主義社会の解説のエッセンスがある。資本主義社会は、経済が支配している社会であるから、心理学や哲学、社会学は経済的基礎を抜きには考えることができない。マルクスが経済学批判を行ったのは方法論的に正しかった。そして、その経済学批判はマルクス以降もこれからも常に行わなければならない。
価値形態論は、初版の本文の方が簡潔でわかりやすい。付録としてつけた、第２版以降の価値形態論はヘーゲル論理学的であり、かえって理解を困難にしている。それはヘーゲル論理学を知らない人にとっても、逆にヘーゲル論理学を知っている人にとっても理解の妨げとなっている。始めから、２版以降の価値形態論を理解しろといっても無理である。まず本文で概略をつかみ、その上で形態論を読ませるという、マルクスの戦略が正しかった。それを変えさせたのはクーゲルマンだっただろうか、エンゲルスであっただろうか。たぶんアドバイスをした人は本当のマルクス理解ができていなかったのだろう。
この叙述の変更が、その後現在に至るまで、価値論争や、価値形態論争を巻き起こしている。そう思えてならない。
Tue Mar 05 06:36:54 2002
⟨impressions⟩
No matter how many times you read it, you will get something. Das Kapital is a really great book. There is the essence of commentary on capitalist society. Since a capitalist society is a society dominated by the economy, psychology, philosophy, and sociology cannot be considered without an economic foundation. Marx's criticism of economics was methodologically correct. And that criticism of economics must always be made after and in the future.
The text of the first edition is simpler and easier to understand in terms of value morphology. The value morphology from the second edition onward, which is attached as an appendix, is Hegelian logic, which makes it difficult to understand. It hinders understanding for those who do not know Hegel logic, and conversely for those who know Hegel logic. From the beginning, it is impossible to understand the value morphology of the second and subsequent editions. Marx's strategy of first grasping the outline in the text and then reading the morphology was correct. Was it Kugelman or Engels who changed that? Perhaps the person who gave the advice did not really understand Marx.
This change in the description has caused value controversy and value form controversy until now. I can't think so.
Tue Mar 05 06:36:54 2002
No matter how many times you read it, you will get something. Das Kapital is a really great book. There is the essence of commentary on capitalist society. Since a capitalist society is a society dominated by the economy, psychology, philosophy, and sociology cannot be considered without an economic foundation. Marx's criticism of economics was methodologically correct. And that criticism of economics must always be made after and in the future.
The text of the first edition is simpler and easier to understand in terms of value morphology. The value morphology from the second edition onward, which is attached as an appendix, is Hegelian logic, which makes it difficult to understand. It hinders understanding for those who do not know Hegel logic, and conversely for those who know Hegel logic. From the beginning, it is impossible to understand the value morphology of the second and subsequent editions. Marx's strategy of first grasping the outline in the text and then reading the morphology was correct. Was it Kugelman or Engels who changed that? Perhaps the person who gave the advice did not really understand Marx.
This change in the description has caused value controversy and value form controversy until now. I can't think so.
Tue Mar 05 06:36:54 2002
[]
