Acknowledgements
Note on Translations and Transcriptions
Part 1 The Method of The Critique of Political Economy
1 Introduction – Marx’s Critique of Fetishism as Method
1.1 The Critique of Fetishism and Uno’s Theory of ‘Pure Capitalism’
1.2 The Aporias of Classical Political Economy
· · · · · ·
(
更多)
Acknowledgements
Note on Translations and Transcriptions
Part 1 The Method of The Critique of Political Economy
1 Introduction – Marx’s Critique of Fetishism as Method
1.1 The Critique of Fetishism and Uno’s Theory of ‘Pure Capitalism’
1.2 The Aporias of Classical Political Economy
1.3 The Critical Function of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value. Against Some Readings of ‘Form’ in Contemporary Value Form Theory
2 What’s ‘Pure’ about Capitalism? Uno’s Three-Level Method and the Theory of Principles
2.1 The Limits of the Three-Level Method (sandankairon)
2.2 Pure Theory’s X-Axis: The Law of Population
2.3 Pure Theory’s Y-Axis: The Commodification of Labour Power
Part 2 The Object of The Critique of Political Economy
3 Uno’s Theory of Value – Value without Fetish (1947–69)
3.1 The Problem of Abstract Labour in Uno’s Theory of Value
3.2 Uno’s Theory of Value: Methodological Individualism and the Fetishism of Use Value
3.3 Uno’s Theory of Money: Baileyan Assumptions
3.4 Uno’s Theory of Capital: M-C-M’ as Pure Form
4 The Principles of Political Economy (1952/1964) in Light of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy
4.1 The Reconstruction of Capital
4.2 The Law of Value as the Law of General Social Equilibrium (Uno)
4.3 Surplus Value and Profit: The ‘Transformation Problem’ in Uno’s Perspective
4.4 The Law of Value as the Law of Crisis (Marx)
5 Uno’s Legacy in Japan and Beyond
5.1 Money vs. Value? The ‘Monetary Approach’ in the Post-Uno School of Value Theory
5.2 The ‘Dialectic of Capital’ as the Apologetic of Capital in the Anglophone Uno School
5.3 The Meaning of Real Subsumption or the Real Subsumption of Meaning: Aspects of Anglophone Uno School Historiographies
References
Index
· · · · · · (
收起)
3 有用 路觉🐾 2023-02-12 23:08:18 广东
骂斯拉法主义就完事了。作者写的特别好,今年为止读到的最好的一本二手文献,感觉理论资源和鲁宾是一样的,而且作者还很青睬黑格尔,批评新阅读和宇野学派(日马早该骂骂了),这一点很对我的胃口。总的来说还是得区分价值实体和价值形式(乃至要明白价值形式和交换的区别),斯拉法主义的问题就是没整明白价值实体。不过抽象劳动只有在货币转化为资本的那部分即《资本论》第四章,才能成功证明为价值实体。因为价值实体意味着独立... 骂斯拉法主义就完事了。作者写的特别好,今年为止读到的最好的一本二手文献,感觉理论资源和鲁宾是一样的,而且作者还很青睬黑格尔,批评新阅读和宇野学派(日马早该骂骂了),这一点很对我的胃口。总的来说还是得区分价值实体和价值形式(乃至要明白价值形式和交换的区别),斯拉法主义的问题就是没整明白价值实体。不过抽象劳动只有在货币转化为资本的那部分即《资本论》第四章,才能成功证明为价值实体。因为价值实体意味着独立性,意味着它是支撑交换系统运转的构成性例外,即剩余。但这一点恰恰是无法表现的,因为构成性例外只能从交换系统破裂的地方才能直观到——在货币转化为资本的地方,也就是等价交换“失效”的地方,才能明白抽象劳动是价值的实体。除此之外作者还和冗余论对线,虽然主要是从哲学领域,这一点我认为可以借助谢克来相互补充。 (展开)
0 有用 虎虎就是只猫 2024-03-11 16:34:39 北京
看了二十几个小时,不想再看德语区人的英语, 太冗长了。
1 有用 荒原原原原原 2023-12-18 12:23:18 安徽
以拜物教作为主线剖析宇野弘藏如何偏离了马克思的问题意识,作者对拜物教的理论可能性做了一些阐发,或许我们可以把拜物教推广为某种更一般的批判方法、乃至学科?作者甚至还用拜物教的思路重新诠释转形问题,指出存在一种“质”的转形(与一般意义上用矩阵数学处理的数量转形截然不同)。但Lange似乎并没有尝试以理解同情的方式探讨宇野为何如此解读马克思,因此形成的是一种内在于马克思却外在于宇野自身的解读过程。