[1] 伝統的マルクス批判とその批判基準としての「自己再帰性」
本書『時間・労働・支配』(原著1993年)はなお支配的な「伝統的マルクス主義」を批判し、その批判基準としてマルクスの「自己再帰的理論」をあげている(訳14,195,230,234,265,485-6,614,645頁など)。ポストンの「再帰的な社会理論」(訳14頁)とは何か。彼がそれを最も詳細に説明する個所は訳234頁(原書p.140)である。そこで彼は、マルクス自身が「マルクスの理論を含む」認識対象に対し、すべての超越的特権的な観点を否認していると指摘する。「[マルクスは]資本制社会に対する批判の提示を･･･その[資本制]社会自身の言葉[商品語]で資本制社会を分析することを余儀なくされている」・「探求の対象の歴史的相対化は･･･理論自体にも再帰する(is also reflective for the theory itself)」といい、徹底した資本主義内在の立場にたつ。本対論者(内田弘)は、すでに三木清が1927年に(本書より66年前に)「イデオロギーの批判は[唯物史観を含む]あらゆる理論、凡てのイデオロギーの現実の土台を吟味することをもって始められるべきである」(『三木清全集』岩波書店第3巻25-6頁)と主張したことを紹介した(『三木清』御茶の水書房2004年210頁)。こう考える三木清へのプロレタリア科学の批判は天下を睥睨する伝統的マルクス主義からの批判である。
[2] マルクスの「自己再帰性」とは、如何なる事態か
[2-1] 商品の直接的交換関係の「自己再帰過程」― 具体的労働と抽象的労働の相互媒介 ―
ポストンの「自己再帰性」の主張は刮目すべきである。では、ポストンはマルクス理論の「自己再帰性」とは如何なる理論構造か、明確に根拠づけているだろうか。ポストンは自己再帰性を使用価値(具体的有用労働)と(交換)価値(抽象的人間労働)の関係に求め、繰り返し強調する「社会的媒介」の根拠とする。しかし彼の説明では、具体的労働と抽象的労働は「並行関係」に留まっていないだろうか。ポストンはつぎのように主張する(訳249頁：p.249)。
「生産者[たち]の労働の特殊性は、彼らが自己労働によって[交換で]獲得する生産物から捨象される(abstracted)。費やされた労働の特定の性質と、その労働を手段にして獲得された生産物の特定の性質との間には、内在的な関係は存在しない」(ボールド体は改訳。[ ]は補足)。
マルクスは『資本論』第1部冒頭第9文節で「諸商品の交換関係を明白に特徴づけるものは、まさに諸商品の使用価値の捨象である」という。「使用価値の捨象」の裏面は「価値の抽象」である。異なる使用価値は交換関係(の交点＝一切の差異が捨象される無限遠点)を媒介に価値を抽象する(カント「媒辞概念の虚偽」)。ポストンは、この抽象的労働の生成の場を把握しない。生成した価値が別の商品の使用価値に現象し、その現象が貨幣に再帰する事態が価値形態である。本書は社会的媒介の基本形態である価値形態論を論及しない。単純商品論の価値と使用価値は並行関係でなく重層的媒介関係＝自己再帰過程を成す。『経済学批判要綱』は使用価値と価値の重層的再帰過程の論証が基本課題であるという。『資本論』最後の利子・地代は資金・土地の使用価値の価格である。
[2-2] 資本の生産過程における「自己再帰性」― 生きた労働の二重作用 ―
『資本論』第1部第1章第2節における、使用価値の生成根拠としての「具体的労働」と価値の生成根拠としての「抽象的労働」の分析は、同「第6章 不変資本と可変資本」に継承される。この継承をポストンは論じない。資本の生産過程における生きた労働は、①具体的労働としては生産手段の使用価値を生産的に消費し新しい使用価値(新生産物)を生産することを媒介に、生産手段の価値を新生産物に移転・保存する(具体的労働の旧使用価値の消費・否定作用＝旧価値の保存・肯定作用)ので生産手段に投下した価値は「不変資本(C)」と規定される。②抽象的労働としては、労働力に投下した価値を再生産し、それを超える剰余価値(M)を生産するので、労働力に投下した価値は「可変資本(V)」と規定される。生きた労働が①生産手段の価値(C)の移転・保存を媒介し、②価値生産物(V+M)を生産することで、資本は価値構成が(C+V+M)である新しい使用価値に自己再帰する。
ポストンは「資本のトレッドミル効果(treadmill dynamic of capital)」(p.281-291)という興味深い比喩を用いて、用語「特別剰余価値」を用いずにそれを論じ、剰余価値論以前の単純商品論の次元に遡及する。では、ポストンは特別剰余価値を正確に把握しているか。彼はつぎのように指摘する。「生産力の向上は、単位時間ごとに生産される価値量を増大させるが、それはこの生産力が一般化されるまでのことである。一般化されてしまった時点では、同じ時間で生み出される価値量は、その抽象的かつ一般的な時間規定のために、以前のレベルへと反落する」(462頁；p.289)。
[2-3] 諸資本の社会的自己再帰過程を媒介する「特別剰余価値」
ここで「単位時間当りの価値量」とは「社会的平均的価値量」である[なお、マルクスの時間概念は「資本時間(無限)を内部に媒介する自然時間(有限)」である]。労働生産性が例外的に高い技術の導入に成功した先駆的個別資本が一時的取得する価値が特別剰余価値である。特別剰余価値は、ポストンが誤解するように単位時間当たりの価値量が「増加」するから取得できるのではない。逆である。特別剰余価値は、先駆的技術を導入して、支配的な社会的平均的価値量[C+V+M]よりも「減少」した個別的価値量[C+V/a+M：aは労働生産性上昇率]で同じ使用価値量を生産できる個別資本が取得する一時的剰余価値[V(1-1/a)]である(ここでも価値と使用価値の媒介関係)。「特別剰余価値＝社会的価値 ― 個別的価値」。個別資本にとって剰余価値が特別剰余価値の分だけ増加すること[V(1-1/a)]を、ポストンは社会的価値量自体が増加すると誤解する。先駆的技術が他の同業者に普及すれば、生産物の新しい社会的価値は特別剰余価値の源泉であった個別的価値の水準にまで低下する。競争する諸資本は新しい自己(低下した社会的平均的価値)に再帰する。ポストンが考えるように一定の生産物の社会的価値は「増加し、いずれ減少する」のではなくて、「一般的傾向的に減少する」。資本主義の不断の技術革新がもたらす傾向である。この低下傾向は、特別剰余価値論を捨象すれば、単純商品論にも一般的には妥当する。
ポストン社会理論はマルクス経済学批判をより正確に吸収すれば、より発展する可能性がある。
《参考文献：内田弘「『資本論』の自然哲学的基礎」『専修経済学論集』2012年3月通巻第111号》
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What kind of movement does Marx’s concept of self-reflection shape as criterium against the traditional Marxism?: A review article of Moishe Postone’s Time, Labor, and Social Domination, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Hiroshi Uchida, Professor of Senshu University, Tokyo
The present reviewer is very much hornered that the Society for the History of Social Thought has secured him an oppotunity to present his review in a session of 18th October 2012 in Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, of Moishe Postone’s book, Time, Labor, and Social Domination, in order to estimate the work, commemorating the publication of Japanese translation by Chikumashobo, last year 2012 in Tokyo.
The translation is very significant for re-reading Marx’s texts, especially Capital in the present critical situation of the worldwide capitalism. Even though the original text was piblished in 1993 just after the fall of the Soviet regime, the book still has validity because it exposes unawareness of death in thought of many kinds of the traditional Marxism.
[1] Postone’s emphasis on Marx’s keyword ‘Self-reflection’ as crtirium of the traditional Marxism
The book, Time, Labor, and Social Donimation surely attracts many audiences with its emphasis on Marx’s hard core of logic of Capital, that is, ‘self-reflection (or self-reflexion)’. Self-reflection approach rejects any kind of transcendental ideological view point that alleges and justifies communism or socialism as inevitable goal of human history, making little or ignoring of serious experiences of Soviet-type socialism in the 20th century.
Postone proposes a presentation that objectifies next step to advance and justifies previous preposition. The method shapes circular movement that advances to the starting point from the backwards, that Postone names ‘self-reflection’. Correctly, the term ‘self-reflection (Rückbeziehung)’ originates from Marx’s Capital. Marx uses the term for the first time in the demonstration of value form in Book One of Capital (Das Kapital, Erster Band, Dietz Verlag Berlin, 1962, p.79), although Postone does not mention.
Marx is very critical agaisnt anything, even agaist his own critical view point. He sometimes writes that his life-work would be ‘a whole science (Wissenschaft)’ or ‘an aesthetic totality’ that establishes itself as radical criterium. His critique implies re-assessment of Kantian Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft) that limits human cognitive capability within sense-understanding frame work over supevision of reason. Marx further limits human cognitive ability within capitalism. People in capitalism can not leave for another world. They have capitalistic experiences as natural eternal ones, that must be examined whether or not it is mental representation of capitalism. Marx applies phenomenological approach to investigation of capitalism. Marx thinks that complete immanence within capitalism opens transcendence from it. Such thought of Marx develops his unique methodology of self-reflection approach. The Book One and the manuscripts for Book Two and Three of Marx’s Capital remains to be re-read from viewpoint of self-reflection approach.
The simple commodity at the head of Capital is the common empirical phenomenon to all those who live within capitalism. It is the only one preposition that Marx logically owes as systematic demonstration of capitalisn and at the end of Book Three of Capital, he proves that capitalism repeatedly brings about ‘huge set of commodity as its own product, each commodity being its element’, just as proposed at the head; that is just the systematic application of ‘self-reflection’. [1] Marx proves in theory and hisory what is capitalisn and why it may collapse in future as the result of its full development. The transcendence of capitalism is justified only when the proof is established why and how capitalism is to collapse.
That is Marx’s own method of self-reflection. As the reviewer has written in his recent article, [2] the method sublates (aufhebt Kantian antinomies in his first Critique. Marx’s critique (Kritik) of political enomy is never one kind of economics, rather it is a critical assessement of the capitalist modernity.
Paying attention to the essense of Marx’s thought, Postone’s work is noteworthy and sygnificant. However, the Japanese history of Marx-study has established a milestone of recognition of the essence of Marx’s thought. Kiyoshi Miki (1897-1945), one of the representative philosophers in the Asian-Pacific War time Japan (1931-45), had already recognized eighty-five years ago in his 1927 philosophical article that Marx’s Critique is and must be applied to Marx’s own thought, or materialistic viewpoint of history. It will fulfill its own mission when capitalism seases to exist (see Collected Works of Kiyoshi Miki, Iwamamishoten, 1966, vol.3, p.25-26). Even Marx’s thought has no transhistorical priviledge from his own viewpoint of history of nature (sub specie aeternitatis). In that sense, it is mighty enough to dismiss any kind of self-privileged ideology that justifies to stand outside of any objects of Critique. [3]
[2] What kind of logic does self-reflection form?
[2-1] Self-reflective process of immediate process of commodity exchange: mutual mediation of concrete labor and abstruct
Then, does Postone analize theoretical structure of self-reflection, clearly and correctly? He rather seeks the basis of self-reflection in the relation between use-value and exchange-value and makes it as ground of ‘social mediation’ that he repeatedly emphasizes. However, according to his explanation, concrete labor and abstract one are paralell, as follows,
‘The specificity of the producers’ labor is abstructed from the products they acquire with their labor. There is no intrinsic relation between the specific nature of the labor expended and the specific nature of the product acquired by means of that labor’ (p.249; italisc original).
Importantly, Marx points out in the nineth paragraph at the head of Capital; ‘It is just the abstruction of use-value of commodities that apparently characterizes their exchange relationship’ (Das Kapital, Erster Band, Dietz Verlag Berlin 1962, p.49-50). Another side of the negative abstruction of use-value is positive abstruction of value. Different use-values abstructs value through exchange relationship. The cross point of use-value is mathematically ‘infinity point in Riemann sphere’ that sublates any difference of use value and originates value. Economically, it is boundary of each modern private property where infinity identifies any diffference by abstruction. Now, reality of use-value transforms into ideality of value; that is re-definition of Kantian ‘fallacy of ambiguious middle’ in his first Kritik. Regrettably, Postone does not grasp the field of value emergence.
Somehow, Postone does not mention the theory of value-form, the first noteworthy demonstration of ‘self-reflection’ in Capital. The theory proves that value of ‘relative value-form’, that originates from the cross point of different use values of commodities, now conctrarily reflects itself on the use-value of the opposite commodity or ‘equivalent form’, and finally transforms into money. Value thus returns to itself (rückbezieht) in developed form of general equivalent or money. Use-value and value in the theory of simple commodity do not stand paralell, but mediate themselves into multi-strata and return into itself. [4]
The 1857-58 Grundrisse already attaches great importance to the mediation of use-value, writing,
‘It will and must bocome clear in the development of the individual sections to what extent use value exists not only as presupposed matter, outside economics and its forms, but to what extent it enters into it’ (see. Marx, Grundrisse, Pelican Book, 1981, p.267-68; italics citor).
Noteworthily, Marx develops the structure that use value establishes by mediating economic categories soon later (see op.cit., p.331-332). Use-value in the critique of political economy never maintains itself as simple as attribute that sutisfies just human phisical or mental needs, but further advances towards architectural mediation. For instance, money interest is the price of use-value of money fund, as proved in Book Three of Capital.
[2-2] Self-reflection in the process of production of capital: double function of living labor
As to Postone’s problematic of self-reflectictive structure of capitalism, it is indispensable to mention the double function of living labor, though he does not discuss it. In the second section of the first chapter of Book One of Capital, Marx confirms that the double aspect of labor of concrete and abstruct is firstly pointed by himself in the 1859 Critique of political Econmy. He again takes up the double labor in Chapter Six of the same book. In the process of production of capital, living labor on none hand prodeces the same amount of value of labor power (paid as wage) and brings value more than that or surplus value. On the other, it produces new use value, consuming old use value of means of production that results the transference and maintenance of old value in the means of production. Production of new use value by consumption of old mediates maitenance of old value. Use value mediates value reproduction also in the process of production. By the double function of living labor, labor power is defined as ‘variable capital’ and means of production as ‘constant capital’, referring to the mathematical terms of derivative. [5] Thus, product of capital as commodity consists of ‘constant capital, variable capital and surplus value [C+V+S]’; commodity capital is self-reflection of simple commodity at the head of Capital that is now highly redefined.
[2-3] Extra-surplus value that mediates social self-reflection of various capitals as relative surplus value [6]
Instead of using Marx’s term ‘exstra-surplus value’, Postone applies metaphor of ‘treadmill dynamic of capital’(p.281-291) to explaination of capitalist economic development. Then, does he correctly understand the extra-surplus value? He writes,
‘Increased productivity increases the amount of value produced per unit of time ― until this productivity becomes generalized; at that point the magnitude of value yielded in that time period, because of its abstract and general temporal determination, falls back to its previous level’ (p.289).
‘The amount of value produced per unit of time’ above is ‘social average amount of value’ of commodity of a kind. It is different from exceptionally small amount of value that brings about ‘extra-surplus value’: that is obtained by exceptional capital pioneering in increasing labor productivity. Exactly, extra-surplus value is difference between social average value [C+V+M] and the exceptional amount [C+V/a+M], that is, V-V/a=V(1-1/a): here [a] is notation of increase rate of labor productivity. The innovative capital monopolizes the extra-surplus value as fruit of the innovation that makes possible to produce the same amount of use value by smaller amount of labor or the substanve of value. Here also use value mediates production of [extra-surplus] value.
Regrettablly, Postone mistakes temporal increse of surplus value so much as extra-surplus value [V(1-1/a)] for that of the social average amount of surplus value [M], as mentioned in the citation above. Marx’s model of capitalist competition is ‘competitive oligopoly’, so to speak, as is already suggested at the head of the central column ‘Capital and Profit’ in The First Economic- Philosophical Munuscripts. As soo as the innovation diffuses widely to most of capitals that belong to the same industry, the extra-surplus value diminishes into zero. Now, social average value is not the same as one before the innovation, but new one as [C+V/a+M]. The truth is not that social average value decreases until the technology expands to most of all capitals of the same industry and increases back to the previous level before the innovation, as Postone misunderstands, but that social average value generally tends to decrease according to technological innovation that prevails amongst most sectors of industry. Competitive capitals return to themselves or reflect themselves as the newly decreased level of social average value. The trends is possible to apply to the abstruct level of the simple commodity at the head of Capital.
The work by Postone is properly estimated as one of the pioneering Marx-studies that puts light on the most important aspect of Marx’s methodology of ‘self-reflection’, however, it is regrettablly short of its theoretical proof.
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
[1] Marx’s ‘self-reflection’ approach stands on the same logic space of Group Theory. Especially group of three equilateral triangles of (1－2－3),(3－1－2),(2－3－1) correspond to three figures of Hegel’s syllogism (I [Individuality] – P [Particularity]- G [Generality]), (G－I－P), (P－G－I) and to Marx’s three pairs of basic economic concepts of Production [P], Commodity [C] and Money [M], that is, (P－C－M), (C－M－P), (M－P－C). The present reviewer will demonstrate the correspondences in his coming article.
[2] Uchida, Hiroshi (2012), The Natural Philosophic Foundations of Marx’s Capital, Economic Bulletin of Senshu University, Vol.46, No.3, March 2012, (in Japanese).
[3] Kiyoshi Miki studied by Martin Heidegger at Marburg in 1923-24 and left there in August 1924 for Paris, and soon after his departure Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) arrived at Marburg to study by Heidegger. What would Miki and Arendt have discussed if they had encountered in Marburg?
[4] The late Kazuji Nagasu argues, ‘Both use value and value have their ground in each other of value or use value’, Becoming independent of Value, Economia, the first issue, 1950, p.62.
[5] ‘Variable and constant’ imply mathematical senses, especially those of derivative. Steadily in his life time, Marx studied mathematics up to his contemporary attainments, leaving huge mathematical note of about one thousand pages. In his critique of political economy, he often used mathematical terms. His critical system shapes ‘hyperbolic’ system where Euler’s (Napier’s) number [e = 2.7182818･･･] may take central role.
[6] See the Figures at the end of the present review article.
〈記事出典コード〉サイトちきゅう座 http://www.chikyuza.net/
〔study578:130310〕
