『資本論』における歴史的諸章の地位と意義 : 第I巻2篇「転化」論との関連において

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • The Theoretical Position and Significance of the Historical Chapters in Capital
  • 『資本論』における歴史的諸章の地位と意義--第1巻2篇「転化」論との関連において
  • シホンロン ニ オケル レキシテキ ショ ショウ ノ チイ ト イギ ダイ 1

この論文をさがす

説明

There are the so-called "historical chapters" in Capital - vol.I chap. 24, vol.III chap. 20, 36 and 47 -, which are given an independent position as chapter. These four "historical parts" form an indispensable link in the system of Capital. Nevertheless, their theoretical significance has not been fully ascertained yet. The purpose of our article, in consideration of this point, is to clarify the theoretical position and significance of the historical chapters in Capital as a whole, not one by one. Our opinion can be summed up in the following two points. The first is a problem why Capital, whose principal object is "logical" consideration, needs the "historical", anti-"logical", parts. Here lies the problem of "logic and history". To conclude, the necessity of the historical chapters for Capital is based on the theoretical ground that a theory cannot be a theory without "supplementing by genesis" (Erganzung der Genesis). It is this "supplementing" that constitutes the theoretical mission of the chapters. By making clear the significance of it, the theoretical position of them can be legitimately, in their originality and necessity, understood. The second is a problem what regulates the peculiar arrangement of the historical chapters which are scattered here and there in Capital, in other words, a problem of the pivot and standpoint for total grasp of them. From this angle, it is decisively important to reexaminate the theory of "the transformation of money into capital" (vol.I part II), rather than the chapters in themselves. Only by connecting with this part, systematic and total positioning of them can be made possible. Dealing with the historical chapters, we are always faced with two difficult questions. Are those chapters merely an appendix to Capital? Can "the historical description" in them be a criterion for interpretation of manifold actual processes of history? To these questions, which are both classical and modern, we attempted to give an answer throughout considerations in our paper.

収録刊行物

  • 土地制度史学

    土地制度史学 25 (4), 21-39, 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