AUT: USSR AND contemorary capitalism are not state capitalism

[miychi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Analysis of contemporary capitalism

 In the historical disputes among various Marxist parties,there have been
many problems at issue for the development of capitalism,for example, the
law of capitalist development,the agricultural problems,the theory of
imperialism etc.
 Today the development of the credit system has made a great change in the
industrial structure of the imperialistic countries and as a matter of
course the credit sytem should be clarified as a theoretical problem. In
$B!!(Jspite of this, the problem has not been adequately dealed with by any
revolutonary left party, to say nothing of established left parties.
 On the definite purpose for increasing the cpital acccumulation and
creating its technical basis, the bourgeois class have engaged in a shrap
controversy on transformation of the industrial structure and development of
credit system$B!!(Jamong themselves. This transformation of the capitalist mode
of accumulation has changed the ordinary consciousness of the mass which
reflected in the ideological world. But the left parties have been far
oblivious to this.


1.What made capital commoditified

  It is now popular among modern theorist to regard money as a symbol. As
shown in the assertion of the disintegration of the proletarian class in the
classical sense and the denying of the labor theory of value with
commoditification of money, the ideological dissolution of Marxism has been
in progress systematically.
 The symbol theory of money is an old theory and many studies have been made
in the field of primitive money theory. The question is why this theory has
been removed from its original field of the primitive money theory and
applied to the present economic situation.
 With the development of the credit system, capital has been so extensively
commoditified that it can represent itself as a commodity in general.
 The price of commoditified capital is determined indifferent from its
original value. Its price mechanism isn't the same as that of commodity in
general. Capital is self-increasing value and embodied abstract human
labor., but the price of commoditified capital can't be determined through
its content. Through amplifying this mechanism to the law of price
mechanism, the fact that the value of commodities is determined with the
amount of abstract human labor and money is generated from commodities as
such will be denied.
 In fact, the price of commoditified capital is determined with dividing the
gross profit into interest and entrepreneur's profit, but in superficies
interest is shown as a product of the credit system which represents itself
as an illusionary communal behaviors. Consequently it is proper to explain
the price of mechanism of commoditified capital by the use value of money as
a symbol , that is, a mediator of illusionary communal behavior.
 Thus the money in the symbol theory, different from the primitive theory of
money ,is just an embodiment of capital, and after all it is a capital
relation that is symbolized here. However, how the capital relation is
embodied in the money can't be seen in superficies. So those who advocate
the symbol theory can't understand this context and just suppose the content
of this symbol as a communal subjectivity or communal illusion.

2.On the the study of credit theory

The symbol theorists pull ahead to understand the movement of the
commoditified capital through the appearances irrespective of the real
capital relation, to grasp it within the framework of the ordinary
commodity, and then to formulate it based on the law of movement as
commodity in general.
 Against such prevailing thinking many kind of Marxists, although they only
acknowledge$B!!(Jthemselves to be so, have expressed their critical opinions.
But , in general, their contents are that the above thinking is just
modification of Marx's theory of commodity and money, and that it conceals
the exploitation of capital in the direct production process to distort the
law of the real capital movement. Thus they can't criticize it on the
clarification for commoditification of capital ,which has in original,
produced such thinking.. All with this the thinking can't be fundamentally
ctiricized, and those opinions seems to be out of date, or, as a case may
be, tend to subordinate to the Stalinist propositions.
 It is already clear that such theoretical delay in the defensive parties of
Marxism can just overcome through the radical solution of commoditified
capital and its movement law.
 Thus it is urgent need to study the credit theory, but the significance of
the study is not confined to this.
 The most important is that with the development of the credit system and
the generalization of commoditification of capital the mode of capital
accumulation have been transformed world-widely, and consequently the
appearence forms of crisis of capitalism have also been transformed.
 This may be in respect to the following fact; the transformation of
accumulation mode is based on the development of the credit system and
through complete reversal of the various social relations by the fetish
capital social appearance have been utterly isolated from their contents.
Thus many kinds of indices for the crisis of capitalism have been thoroughly
encoded.
 The extreme end of this study must be to decode these indices.

3.The Viewpoints of the study

$B!!(JAlthough  we need not consider the discussion that the analysis which
Lenin made in his " Imperialism" can be directly applied today's
imperialism, there have been various opinions for the today's imperialism,
financial capital or monopoly capital. And some of them ask as follows; how
can we relate "Imperialism" with "Capital" and understand both of them
systemically?
$B!!(JFrom this point it is the most adequate to see the content of the
financial capital as stock capital and to place it at the end of the theory
of the individual capitals which deals with the industrial, commercial, and
interest-bearing capitals, in order, and thus to make it a start for
theorizing of the financial capital or imperialism as well as for
theoretically systematization of "Capital".
 However, the present accumulation modes of financial capital are quite
different from those of at the time of Lenin or Hilferding. As generally
known, the stock capital, which is the content of the financial caital,
duplicated itself the real and fictitious capitals. The movement of the
fictitious capital, which was just a means for mobilization of the real
capital, now become the main means of accumulation of financial capital.
 The original form of the fictitious capital is a lending capital which
shows the commoditification of capital. This lending capital, of
interest-bearing capital, intervenes the reproduction process of capital
from outside and devides the surplus value(to acquire the interest),
Therfore, we can call this capital as an economy fictitious, while the real
capital which is really related to the production of the surplus value may
be an economy real
 Naturally, the former cannot exist without he latter. But it is enlarging
its working realm under the new conditions of nonconvertible money system$B!"(J
or world-wide domination of dollar, after the fall of the gold standard
system, and internalization of the direct production process by
multinational enterprises, and thus comes to control the economy real,
 Now, following the standpoint mentioned above, we cannot find the keys for
solution of the present situation of the specific accumulation modes of
financial capital, under which the economy fictitious formed through
commoditification of capital dominates the economy real of the industirial
capital. Although, it is required to analyze the reverse relation of the
economies real and fictitious.
 There might be no trouble if the market of commodity in general and the
financial market of the commoditified capital had their own working realms
each other. However, in practice the movement of the interest-bearing
capital is associated with that of commodity in general, and the latter
movement also constitutes the movement of commoditified capital and thus it
has a twofold nature. At first it is in the financial market that we can see
the working commoditified capital. But in this field only the concentration
and subrogation of the interest-bearing capital are presumed and the
movement of the interest-bearing capital as that of capital in general
cannot be found in its appearance form at all.
 We must firstly distindhish the movement of the interest-bearing capitals
from that of capital in general which is hiding from the financial market.
And for this we need take notice of that twofold nature of movement of the
commodity in general.
 From the time being, we can call this commodity in twofold movement as a
credit commodity.
It is now required to clarify the principles of its movements.
  "Capital" has already clarified the principles of the movement of the
commoditified capital isolated from that of commodity in general as a theory
of the interest-bearing capital. However, the credit commodity performs a
twofold movement. So we cannot understand it as that of two separate
movements based on the separate principle of the commodity in general and
interest-bearing capital.
 Therefore, we must again analyze the peculiar principle of the credit
commodity. Just doing so, the reverse relation of the economies real and
fictitious can be explained theoretically.

 4. The critics for the colonialism and the credit system
 in order to clarify the principle of the credit commodity, it is necesary
to formulate its movement principle in the world market. At the early stage
of imperialism which began under the world market unified through commodity
exchange, the colonialism which stimulated world-widely theoretical
annexations was essential for the domination of the world by the financial
capital through export of capital.
 After international completion of the credit system, the world market has
upgraded from the stage of mere unification with commodity exchange to that
with the credit commodity, i.e. the movement of the commoditified capital.
And under this circumstance a new colonialism has come into full bloom and
the peculiarity in the development of the modes of capitalist production has
been produced in the underdeveloped countries.
 The argument on the so-called 'non-equivalent exchange' have their own
limitation as they grasp the world market just within the framework of the
commodity exchange., but it is no doubt that they are caused from
generalization of the movement of the credit commodity, diferent from that
of the simple commodity exchange.
 Therefore for those who are plundered their labor-value through credit
relations, study of credit theory shouldn't be limited to clarification of
the credit system but also aim at the world-wide transformation of
accumulation modes of capital.
 In order to see the emergent nature of this work, let's take another
example. Although each stands on the various viewpoints, it is very popular
to see the underdeveloped countries as middle-developed. It is caused from
the world-wide transformation of accumulation modes of capital through the
movement of the credit commodity. And the established Marxists schools have
been theoretically encroached by these argument. It means that those schools
have been captured with bourgeois ideologies and have accepted the
chavinism. Therefore it is quite necessary to start a theoretical struggle
against these ideological streams.

Introduction

  In 1954 the first edtion of $B!H(JPolitical Economy;a textbookk$B!I(J was compiled
and published under of Stalin. From 1917, Octoboer Revolution to the
publication of the textbokk there were various kinds of changes In Soviet
Political Economy, in which a main disputed subject was,from the point of
view value of commodity and law of value, is to be considered. After October
Revolution became popular Bogdanov$B!G(Js viewpoint, that in any time energy of
labor is required to produce some product,consequently value is not a result
of a given historical society, but possess a permanent property. This point
of view was afterwards criticized as a mechanical concept because of
considering value ,in which expressed social relation of men, to be entirely
determined by technical attainment of labor. I.I.Rubin criticized this
viewpoint, He said $B!H(J Abstract labor and value in the process of direct
production is created,or conformed, and fully realized only in the process
of exchange$B!I(J His critique is right as far as it maintainted that value
express social relation of men and point out the error of physiological
conception of value, but his fault lies in the assertion taht value is
created only in the process of exchange. And in the Academy of Science this
problem was disputed between A.F. Kon who adopted physiological viewpoint of
abstract human labor and Rubin who opposed him. But this discussion is
discontinued in the process when Stalin,taking an energy measure in the
crisis of grain supply, smashed Bukalin$B!G(Js group which stood against him.
Along with the problem how to consider value of a commodity, a typical
representation of which we can see in the dispute between Rubin and Kon,
there was another disputed point i.e. Bukharin$B!G(Js theory of law of value.His
theory was accepted from the beginning as an established one, but since
Stalin$B!G(Js criticism of Bkharin begins criticism of Bukharin$B!G(Js theory. For
that purpose utilised $B!H(J Commentary on $B!F(JEconomics of transitional period of
Bukharin$B!I(J written by Lenin, criticized his equibrium theory and law of
labor expenditure, along with which arises criticism on Rubin-Kon dispute
and both were expeled as scholatic,not based upon the reality. Adding
criticism of E.A.Preobrazhenskij$B!G(Js theory of $B!H(JPrimary socialistic
accumulation $B!H(J to those above^mentioned, on the basis of these three kinds
of criticism, a first commonly accepted theory of Soviet Economics is made
up under the Stalin$B!G(Js political system,for example, $B!H(JCommentary of Capital$B!I(J
of Rozenberg etc. The textbook,published after the World war 2, was overall
revised, enlarged,but in some points adopted accepted theory. The two
important revision must be point out. First, these accepted opinion in the
first period were conmformed by means of connecting $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J with
$B!H(JImperialism$B!I(J.then afterwards systematized. Next, the conception of the
first accepted theory that in the socialistic society there exists no
commodity,money or value and that the commdity,money and value in Soviet
Union are quite defferent from those of capitalist society, they are mere
unit of calculation-this conception has been upset in the process of
compiling the textbook after the World War 2, and it is confirmed rhat under
socialist condition of society there exists production of commodities and
law of value. After above-mentioned changes the textbook has undergone
frequent revisions. After the publication of the first edition of the
texbook Stalin was criticized as the 20th convention of Soviet Communist
Party, and that, the fault of Stalin$B!G(Js phylosphical and economical
viewpoint came to be pointed out. Thus the textbook written according to
Stalin$B!G(Js theory has revised in many points. Comparing the first edition
with the forth edition of 1962, most quotations from Lenin and reference to
him have increased. The Stalin$B!G(Js theory regarding production of commodities
under the socialist conditions of society is criticized,calling his name.
Still more, the chapter organization regarding socialist mode of production
has been entirely changed, and these changes are in line with new program
dedcided at the 22nd convention of Soviet Communist Party.
 Neverthless, the forth edition has not got out of the limites of Stalin$B!G(Js
thoery. For that reason it is of great importance to take this forth edition
of the textbook as an object of study and criticize Stalin$B!G(Js theory, so
restore the Marx-Lenin theory of economics.

Section1 The critique of commody theory

Forword
 This $B!H(JPolitical economy;a textbook.4th ed$B!I(J is characterized by its
succesive adoption of Stalin$B!G(Js theory,which considers the law of value as
$B!H(J the econimic laws of production of commodities$B!I(J, and the production of
surplus value as $B!H(J the fundamental economic laws of capitalism$B!I(J. This
textbook is written in the form of that of political economy in broad sense,
which justifies its adoption of Stalin$B!G(Js theory.
 Comparing the discription of the textbook about the capitalist mode of
production with that of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J,it is perceived that in the $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J
an investigation proceeds from the analysis of the commodity as a rudimental
form of wealth in the society in which the capitalist mode of production
prevails, to the description of money,its transformation into capital and
the production of the absolute surplus value. On the other hand in the
textbook starting from the analysis of the production of commodities as a
starting point of capotalism emergence i.e. the analysis of commodity of the
simple commodity production society,followed by the consideration of the
money, the law of of value formulated as the economic laws of commodity
production, on the basis of the formula dealt with the prlimitive
accumulation of capital and the definition of capitalist property,refered to
the transformation of money into capital and after the mentioned about the
production of surplus value as $B!H(Jthe fundamental economic laws of capitalism$B!I(J
  What kind of modification of Marx$B!G(Js critique of capitalism has caused
these traits of the texbook$B!G(Js description?
The subject of this paper is to make this point clear.

    1. Value and the sunstance of value
 In the textbook a different conclusion is drawn from an argument on
so-called $B!H(J distillation$B!I(J of $B!H(JCapital$B!I(J. Marx makes clear that the common
factor, expressed in the exchange relation of two commodities consists of
human labor in the abstract and when it being considered as a social
substance,that is-value,whereasin the textbook it is maintaned $B!H(Junderlying
the equivalence of two commodities which are exchanged against each other is
the social labor expended in producing them.....value is the social labour
of commodity producers embodied in a commodity$B!I(J($B!H(JThe textbook$B!I(J)
 inthe texbook, differntly from Marx,the value of a commodity $B!H(J reduced$B!I(J
to$B!I(J the social labor$B!I(J. But this $B!H(J reduction$B!I(J is far from reduction. The
value of a commodity is the social determiation of labor-form i.e. the form
which labor must assume to become social labor. Therefore in the proposition
of the textbook that the commodity has value because of the social labor
being embodied in it, there is a confusion about its comprehension of the
labor of commodty producer,since that it suppose a social labor by
itself,without relation to the value of commodiies.
 It is said inthe textbook,$B!I(J That the value of commodities embodies the
social labor expended in producing them is borne out by some generally known
fact$B!I(J(po. cit.)
  This statement may be suggested by the following pasage of $B!H(JCapital$B!I!I(J
What is the value of commmodity? The objective form of the social labor
expended in its production$B!I(J($B!H(JCapital$B!I(J) However there is a big differnce
between them. In the textbook,in the first place value is considered as a
social labor producing commodities wich is embodied in those commodities,
and since that value is entirely reduced to the social labor i.e. the
substance of labor. On the other hand Marx look upon value as the objective
form of social labor i.e. the necessary form of it. Without taking form of
value, the labor producing commodities cannot be a social labor..
Nevertheless in the textbook there is no point of view to analyzing value as
a form of social labor and introduced the conception of social labor without
any regard to the form of social labor as the value of commodities.

   2.The error in understanding of abstract human labor
  The above mentioned confusion has been caused from the incorrect
understanding of human labor in the abstract.
  $B!H(J The labor of comodity produces, considered as expenditure of human
labor-power generally, without regard to its concrete form,is abstract
labor. Abstract labor forms the value of commodity$B!I(J(The textbook)
$B!I(Jit follows that the contradiction of commodity production consists in the
labor of commodity producers, ehich is directly the private affair of each
one of them,having at the same time a social character. Owing to the
isolation of the commodity producers one from another, the social character
of their labor in the process of production remains hidden. It finds
expression only in the precess of exchange when the commodity comes on  to
the market and its exchaged against another commodity. Only in the process
of exchange is it revealed whether the labor of a particular commodity
producers is needed by society and whether it will receive social
recognition$B!I(J(The texybook)
 What is evident from these statements is that the abstract human labor
conforming the value of commodity is comprehended as an actual labor losing
its concrete form which is cast away in the process of production, thus
giving a social character the labor of commodity producer. And it is
considered that the commodity producer$B!G(Js labor which conforms a social
character of the commodity producer$B!G(Js labor is hidden in the process of
production and only in the exchange process reveals itself.
 So it is evident, in the textbook no distinction in made berween abstract
human labor as the substance of value available from the analysis of
exchange value which means a social substance and abstract human labor
losing its concrete form in the process of production. As a result of that
an explanation is required that the abstract human labor embodied in the
products represents itself at the stage of exchange process.
 This explanation. however, is false. There is no doubt that the labor of a
commodity producer hasa quality of the concrete human labor and that of the
abstract human labor in the form of expenditure of human labor power in the
physiological sense. However the labor of commodity producer as an actual
labor conforms no value and so the quality of abstract human labor cannnot
be the substance of value. The labor of a commodity producer is nothing but
the value creating substance and its quality of abstract human labor makes
value creating power of this substance. This is distinguished from the
abstract human labor manifested in the commodity i.e. the substance of
value.
 Therefore how $B!H(J the labor of a commodity producer may presents itself as
the expenditure of general human labor$B!I(J, it means a value creating power,
but not abstract human labor as a substance of value.
 Because of the failure in clear understanding of this, the textbook
indicates the contradiction of the commodity production $B!H(J which is the
private affair,having at the same time a social character$B!I(J.but fails in
correct understanding of the contradiction. According to the argument o the
textbook the labor of commodity producers is $B!H(J a social labor in essence$B!I(J
but $B!H(J the social character of their labor in the process of production
remains hidden$B!I(J, and it $B!H(Jfinds expression only in the exchange process$B!I(J
and these sotuaitions are considered as a $B!H(Jcontradiction$B!I(J
 The above mentioned understanding pf $B!H(Jcontradiction$B!I(J is the necessary
consequence of considering value as a commodity producer$B!G(Js labor i.e. the
value creating substance of value as a quality of abstract human labor of
acual human labor in the process of production. However the traits of the
social character of commodity producing labor cannot be made clear by such
investigation.
 The contradiction between the private labor of commodity producer and the
socia; labor doesn$B!G(Jt lie in what is indicated in the texbook. It consists
in the social correlations which the labor of commodity producers must
assume ,so that one product of private labor in the form of of use value
embodies abstract human labor and another producer, entering into relation
this embodiment,represents human labor, when a private labor turns into a
social labor.
 Therefore, the contradiction does$B!G(Jt as it is said in the texbook, in that
a general quality of the commodity producer$B!G(Js labor as being abstract human
labor i.e. social labor shows ielf in the social relation between the
several producer$B!G(Js labors which are equal human labor because of their
properties of being abstract human labor, but it lies in the general qaulity
confirmed in the light of use-value as a result of actual labor,
consequently a social character of commodity producer$B!G(Js labor appears as an
objective quality o product i.e. a qaulity of things in itself, thus the
property of being abstract human labor of each commodity producer$B!G(Js actual
labor does$B!G(Jt bear value, but it is reduced to the human labor i.e. the
substance of value and this value forming power,being reduced,conforms the
socially labor time.
 As it is said, abstract human labor which has already benn realyzed in the
processs ofnproduction doesn$B!G(Jt reprsent itself in  the exchange process. It$B!G(J
s matter of course that in the process of production exists a value creating
substance and if the actual labor isn$B!G(Jt spent to create value, things of
value cannot be produced. The noteworthy thing is that in the process the
value creating labor is reduced to abstract humnan labor and a social
character of commodity producing labour is  also reflected.
 The abstract labo as a substance of nalue is realizad in the world of
commodities,where the total social labor is devided ina certaion proportion
acccording to the material properties of products i.e. ther ralation of
supply and demand for each commodity. The labor of a commodity producers as
the expentiture  of human labor-power in the physiological sense comforms
value in its quality of being abstract human labor.
 However such expenditure as a substance of value itself does$B!G(Jt turn into
abstract human labor,but when the actual human laboor poweris expended to
create a commodity, this expenditure is reduced to abstract human labor
which acquires expression in the commodity which is realized in the world of
commodities.
 Thus it is crear that a conception of the social labor is formed
incorrectly in the textbook. Next we examine this point

3.The conception of social labor aparm from value

   The Texbook determines abstract human labor as follows;
 $B!H(J Abstract labor, ehich forms the value of a commodity,is a historical
category,a specific form of social labor belonging to commodity ecomomy
only.......The socpal character of labor is here expressed by means of the
comparison of one commodity with another, and this comparison takes place
through the reducing of concrete forms of labor to the abstract labor which
forms the value of a commodity$B!I(J
 Thus in the Texbook it is considered that the social charactere of labor
finds its expression in the equation of commodities and that the equation of
commodities is based upon that the actual labor can reduced to the abstract
human labor$B!I(J

     On the contrary Marx comprehends the commodity as the form taken by the
social labor and examines the exchange of commodities to analyze the form in
which the social labor appears,
 Therefore as in the textbook finding the ground of the exchange of
commodities in the social labor is a mistaken viewpoint which is caused from
the failure in grasping the characteristics of the economy of commodities in
which labor turns into a social labor in the objective form.
 Marx analyzes the form of a social labor itself,that is. the exchange of
commodities and reduces exchange-value to abstract human labor, with the
intention of making clear what kind of substance this form pf social labor
consists of. Thus the peculiar character of the social labor becomes to be
known. However the character of the social labor cannnot be made clear by
fimdimg the ground of the exchange of commodities in the social labor.
 As abstract human labor is determined in the textbool as $B!H(Ja specific form
of social labor$B!I(J and as a social character of commodity producer$B!G(Js labor
is asserted to $B!H(J find exprssion only in the exchange process$B!I(J, it follows
that the abstract human labor which is $B!H(J a specific form of social labor$B!I(J
must appear in the exchange process. If we take this conception anout the
abstract human labor for granted, it would become clear why the texbook has
reduced the exchange of commodities in the social labor.
 As abstract human labor is nothing but a determination of the matter
quality of labor consisting the substance of value,it cannnot take a form by
itself. Therefore the determination of it as $B!H(Ja specific form of social
labor$B!I(J means that the texbook considers the abstract human labor as being
equal to value, so that it also becomes understabdable that the texbook
assert this human labor reveals itself in the exchange process.
 This alsp means, on the other hand, hat the texbook reduces value to a
substance, understanding ut as an amount of social labor. Thus the failure
ofntakeing abstract humanl  labor for obviously means that the abstract
human labor is described as a certain exchange ratip in the exchange
process. So it is clear that the form of social labor is comprehended as a
mere exchange ratio(that is cost) lacking in quantiatice determination.
 Thus the assertion ,made by the texbook, that, reducing the exchange of
commodities to a social labor$B!I(J the value is a social labor of commodity
producers embodied in the commodities$B!I(J is based upon commodity producers
embodied in the commodities$B!I(J is based upon the conception of the indication
of its amount by means of exchange ratio(the indication of value by means of
cost)
as a $B!H(Jspecific form of social labor$B!I(J determined as an abstract human
labor, and so that it is found to be a neccesary result of its conception of
value as an mere amount. The assertion that the value is a form of social
labor is,therefore,utterly beyond consideration of the texbook.

4.The ignorance of the way of expresssion of value in the form of value

  In the texbook, it is out o fconsideration to take value for the form
which labor must take to change to a social labor,consequently the labor is
considered from the beginning to have a social character,which acquires
expression
in the exchange value in the exchange process,and as a result of that
follows a conception of exchange ratio in which the maginitude of value in
expressed as a social labor, that is say, value and a social labor are
reduced to a mere ammount, thus giving a definition of a abstract human
labor as $B!H(J a form to which a social labor is reduced$B!I(J
 Therefore it is not difficult to expect taht in the texsbook the analysis
of value-form made by Marx is beyond understanding. The texbook ,before
refering to value-form,declares that $B!H(J The value of a commodity is created
by labor in the process of production,but it can only through the comparison
of one commoditu with another in the process of exchange i.e. through
exchange-value.$B!I(J Here is no conception of exchange value as a form of
value,but the magnitute of value expressed entirely in the exchange ratio is
found to be comprehended as a phenomena of value.
 From this point of view it is natural that the texbook does$B!G(Jt pay any
attention to the analysis of Marx,studying value-form and shows that a
private labor immediately turns into the social form of labor,thus solving a
problem of money.
  In the analysis of value-form, Marx shows, firstly a mechanism by which
labor is reduced to an abstract human labor,based on the discovery of the
mode of expression of value, secondly indicates the peculiar form of
commodity producer$B!G(Js labor and a general productive relation between
commodity producers, thirdly makes clear the money-like property of a
commodity and the problem of money, and forthly explains a money conforming
process as a development of value-form.
 However as for analysis of value-form the texbook refers only to the
development of value-form and a money comforming process is mentionted
without any regard to the analysis of money problem made by Marx,thus the
money conforming process is not lead from the contained in the exchange
process,as it is mentioned by Marx in his $B!H(JCriticism of Political Economy$B!I(J
 It becomes clear that in the texbook the description of value-form is
reduced to that of money conforming process in the exchange process. This
defect has result from reducing conception of value to its substance and
considering abstract human labor as $B!H(Ja specific form of social labor$B!I(J,thus
reducing it to the exchange ratio.$B!I(J
 The textbook explains a simple form of value as follows;$B!I(JBehind the
equaility of these commodities is concealed the equal expenditure of labor
in producing them.$B!I(J
 To be sure, the equation of two commodities ndicates that two sort of
labors spent on their production are equal as being human labor.
 But in the anlysis of value-form


MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatry Department
Komaki mucicipal hospital
1-20.JOHABUSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---