Marx's Capital

マルクスの『資本論』では、資本主義の発展とともに労働者はますます隷属的で貧困になり「資本の専制」が完成していくという叙述と並んで（従属深化説）、それとは反対に、資本主義の発展とともに労働者階級の数が増え、その団結力が増し、やがて収奪者を収奪する時がくるという叙述が存在する（並行発展説）。この「アポリア」は、どちらも後にマルクスの信奉者たちを鼓舞する役割を果たしたが、理論的に媒介される必要がある。その一つの試みを提示する。マルクス生誕200周年を記念して『科学的社会主義』に書いた論文を加筆修正したもの。

In India, the dissemination and reception of Marxism as a philosophy in general and Marx's Capital as a text in particular did not happen in a linear and homogeneous fashion. It entailed a complex and heterogeneous process, amidst contestation from multiple socio-political groups' movements towards transformation from historically
ordained pre-modern graded inequality, in the form of Brahminical patriarchy, to emerge into the modern egalitarian socio-political subjectivity.
This paper will investigate the historical background of why and how Marxism disseminated in India through the dominant regional languages in line with the rise of the different regional linguistic movements. In this context, the paper will examine the specific case of Telugu language formation and the translation of Marxist thought into Telugu. I shall contextualize the translation of Marxist thought into Telugu in the
backdrop of the fetishization of the language through Bashabhimaanam by the regional elite at the cost of suppression of the larger social formation in order to determine their regional hegemony. The paper will also examine the politics of translation of Capital in the light of the nexus between the pan-Indian English-educated nationalist elite and the English-educated Telugu regional elite. Finally, the paper will study the relation between the politics of translation of Capital and the communist movement in Telangana.

2008年に作品社から出版した著作。翌年に再版になったので、そちらをアップした（再版では初版にあった誤字を修正）。剰余価値論は、マルクスの『資本論』体系の中で最も完成されたものだが、それでもなお不十分な点があり、その再構築を企図したもの。「マルクス剰余価値論の再構成」４部作の第１部をなす。研究の過程で、マルクスの標準労働日論が非常に重要であることに気づき、その理論的発展過程を追った章が本書の中で最も分厚い部分となった。この標準労働日研究のおかげで、『資本論』における階級闘争と社会的承認の契機の独自の意義をはじめて本当に理解することができた。この本は、その意味で、その後における私の『資本論』研究の新しい地平を切り開くものとなった。

... The abandoning of the materialist basis leads inexorably from revolutionary socialism to reformism (Grossmann, 1970, p ... rise in the organic composi-tion of capital would lead to a falling rate of proJit ... only the variable part of capital that yields surplus-value, while the rate of profit ...

Of all the fashionable 'corrections' of Marx's Capital, none has been performed so often as the transformation of values into prices. From Bortkiewicz (1907) [3] to Samuelson (1971) [4], bourgeois 'science' has felt itself impelled to improve, correct or revise Marx on this question. With Sweezy's introduction of the Bortkiewicz 'correction' of Marx to the English speaking world in 1946 [5], another round of 'solutions' began. Although many differ in form from the Bortkiewicz/Sweezy contribution, and some avoid the more obvious errors, they treat the problem in a more or less similar way.

In recent times it has become fashionable on the left to 'correct' Marx with the help of the work of the neo-Ricardian L von Bortkiewicz. Indeed a radical form of Ricardianism has, in the work of many claiming to be in the Marxist tradition, replaced Marxian critique of political economy both in content and method. Recent examples include the work of Glyn and Sutcliffe, Hodgson and Steedman. What all these contributions have in common is a rejection of certain of the basic propositions of Marx's Capital and a substitution of others having more in common with the work of Ricardo. The justification for this change is an appeal to the 'facts', to empirically given real processes.

The text consists in a presentation and comments to translated extracts of Marx's revision notes – published here for the first time in Portuguese – to the second edition of Capital (1872). The content of these excerpts stresses the social character of value objectivity and point to the importance of the value form analysis in Marx's social critique. Departing from the different treatments of the value form as they appear in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Capital (1867) and Capital (1872), the text highlights the precise object of Marx's investigations, its difference regarding the the method of classical Political Economy and some practical aspects derived from his critical conception.

This chapter investigates Marx’s Capital as a theoretical resource for analysing both the form and content of the modern corporation. We assess two recent
contributions critiquing the corporation.

The chapter argues that Marx advanced from his initial ambivalent comments on the form of the joint stock company and the credit system to a more categorical critique. We assess Marx’s concepts of the concentration and centralization of capital, fictitious capital and rent in analysing the corporation.

Next, we note Engels important contribution filling in from the early limited liability company to monopoly capital and modern imperialism. The chapter ends with two examples of how these concepts apply in concrete analysis. The work is highly preliminary and is intended to open a more theoretically informed approach to analysis and critique of the multinational corporation.

In Capital, Marx argues that, in a given sector of production producing a given class of commodity, should one capitalist production unit introduce a productive technique based on a higher level of productivity of labour than that obtaining in the rest of the sector, that production unit will be able, through lowering the per-unit value of its commodity product, to reap a surplus-profit-a rate of profit higher than the sectorally-obtaining rate. Marx strongly suggests that the ability to reap this surplus profit is why capitalists introduce more productive techniques in the first place (even though, once introduced, competition between production units forces the adoption of the new technique through the sector, and the innovator's advantage disappears). Given that Marx imputes to capitalist reproduction a constant and consistent rise in the level of labour productivity, and given that this secular rise explains the key characteristics of capitalist reproduction itself (accumulation, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the very unstable dynamism of capitalist reproduction), the quest for surplus profit must lie at the heart of what is constitutive to capitalist production and reproduction. It is surprising, therefore, that the literature commenting on Marx's theory almost in its entirety attributes the drive to adopt innovative and more productive techniques to competition. I reject this argument, and insist that, for Marx, it is the quest for surplus profit that drives capitalists to adopt innovative production techniques, not competition.