再生産論の意義と限度 : 富塚・久留間両氏の所説によせて

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • Significance and Limitation of Marx's Reproduction-Theory in his Crisis-Theory
  • サイセイサンロン ノ イギ ト ゲンド フツカ キュウリュウカン リョウシ ノ

この論文をさがす

説明

The purpose of this paper is to make clear the following points. The significance and the limitation of Marx's reproduction theory lies in grounding the economic crisis structually, by setting so called "inner contradiction," i.e. one between the tendency of capital to develope the production without limit and the relations of reproduction to limit it: proportions of industrial branches and limited consumption as a mediater, into the schema of reproduction, i.e. a manifestation of ideal self-reproduction system of a bourgeois society abstracting foreign trades in the world of value or surplus value. Tomizuka Theory, in which Marx's crisis theory seems to be reorganized as a. kind of expanding equilibrium model with limit, is characterlized especially by the unique comprehension of the relationship between crisis theory and reproduction theory, where the schema of reproduction is considered an apparatus not for affirming the contradiction in the structure but for detecting disequilibrium in the "dynamic state". In the meantime Prof. Tomizuka elaborates the equilibrium conditions and assers that so called "equilibrium accumulation track", which is a kind of expanding equilibrium one to keep the given proportion of productive branches constant, belongs to Marx. But the formative process of Marx's reproduction theory shows that Prof's comprehension and assertion is different from what Marx intended. That is, it can be admitted that Marx used the inner relationship of unity of capitals as the detective standard of disequilibrium in relating the so called "Original Schema" with crisis theory in "Grundrise", but it is because he considered the crisis theory in competitive rather than in structual at that time, however,we can also find the origin of the structual achievement there. But, on the other hand, the formative process shows that such a weekpoint, together with other ones that the branches expand with the same proportion (rates) and that the revolution in productive force is treated simultaneously, is rectified through "Mehrwert". We cannot admit that Prof. Tomizuka takes such process in consideration. Kuruma Theory is also characterilized by the unique comprehension of the relationship between reproduction theory and crisis theory which denies so called "inner contradiction". That is, Prof. Kuruma maintains that the point in the reproduction theory is the logic that the fluctuation of accumulation rate produces "troubles" through changing the ratio of branches, which is connected with another unique understanding that the fall of the profit rate makes the accumulation rate fall and thus crisis breaks out. But the theory of the "transision from simple reproduction to extended': lying under such comprehension and consisting its basis, has lost its ground finally with the appearance of the 8th maniscript of "Kapital" II. The ruin of the "transision theory" and the confirmation of the theory of accumulation mechanism by the manuscript, together with the formative process, seems to force both Tomizuka and Kuruma Theories that deny the contradiction in the structure to be reconsidered.

収録刊行物

  • 土地制度史学

    土地制度史学 25 (3), 22-40, 1983

    土地制度史学会(現 政治経済学・経済史学会)

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ