As

[MIYACHI <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: As

As for law of value, I criticized as below.

Below is the article written by my small group(sekiho=red report) before USSR was collapsed, but I think this article still has meaning because most of Marxist lack correct analysis of commodity(including such as Lucac, Jameson, Zizec, Negli etc) so total grasp of current credit capitalism remains uncompleted.

critique of Soviet “political economy; a Textbook 4th edition”

Introduction

  In 1954 the first edition of “Political Economy ;a textbook” was compiled and published under of Stalin. From 1917, October Revolution to the publication of the textbook 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’s 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 “ Abstract labor and value in the process of direct production is created, or conformed, and fully realized only in the process of exchange” His critique is right as far as it maintained that value express social relation of men and point out the error of physiological conception of value, but his fault lies in the assertion that 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’s 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’s theory of law of value. His theory was accepted from the beginning as an established one, but since Stalin’s criticism of Bkharin begins criticism of Bukharin’s theory. For that purpose utilized “ Commentary on ‘Economics of transitional period of Bukharin” written by Lenin, criticized his equilibrium theory and law of labor expenditure, along with which arises criticism on Rubin-Kon dispute and both were expelled as scholastic, not based upon the reality. Adding criticism of E.A.Preobrazhenskij’s theory of “Primary socialistic accumulation “ 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’s political system, for example, “Commentary of Capital” 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 conformed by means of connecting “Capital” with “Imperialism”.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 commodity, money and value in Soviet Union are quite different 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 that 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 textbook Stalin was criticized as the 20th convention of Soviet Communist Party, and that, the fault of Stalin’s philosophical and economical viewpoint came to be pointed out. Thus the textbook written according to Stalin’s 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’s 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 decided at the 22nd convention of Soviet Communist Party.
 Nevertheless, the forth edition has not got out of the limits of Stalin’s theory. For that reason it is of great importance to take this forth edition of the textbook as an object of study and criticize Stalin’s theory, so restore the Marx-Lenin theory of economics.

Section 1 The critique of commodity theory

Foreword
 This “Political economy ;a textbook.4th ed” is characterized by its succesive adoption of Stalin’s theory,which considers the law of value as “ the econimic laws of production of commodities”, and the production of surplus value as “ the fundamental economic laws of capitalism”. This textbook is written in the form of that of political economy in broad sense, which justifies its adoption of Stalin’s theory.
 Comparing the description of the textbook about the capitalist mode of production with that of “Capital”,it is perceived that in the “Capital” 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 capitalism 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 primitive accumulation of capital and the definition of capitalist property ,referred to the transformation of money into capital and after the mentioned about the production of surplus value as “the fundamental economic laws of capitalism”.
  What kind of modification of Marx’s critique of capitalism has caused these traits of the textbook’s description?
The subject of this paper is to make this point clear.

    1. Value and the substance of value
 In the textbook a different conclusion is drawn from an argument on so-called “ distillation” of “Capital”. 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, whereas in the textbook it is maintained “underlying the equivalence of two commodities which are exchanged against each other is the social labor expended in producing them.....value is the social labor of commodity producers embodied in a commodity”(“The textbook”)
 in the textbook, differently from Marx, the value of a commodity “ reduced” to” the social labor”. But this “ reduction” is far from reduction. The value of a commodity is the social determination 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 commodity producer, since that it suppose a social labor by itself, without relation to the value of commodities.
 It is said in the textbook,” That the value of commodities embodies the social labor expended in producing them is borne out by some generally known fact”(op. cit.)
  This statement may be suggested by the following passage of “Capital”” What is the value of commodity? The objective form of the social labor expended in its production”(“Capital”) However there is a big difference between them. In the textbook, in the first place value is considered as a social labor producing commodities which 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.
  “ The labor of commodity 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”(The textbook)
”it follows that the contradiction of commodity production consists in the labor of commodity producers, which 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 process of exchange when the commodity comes on  to the market and its exchanged 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”(The textbook) 
 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’s labor which conforms a social character of the commodity producer’s 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 between 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 has 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 cannot 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 “ the labor of a commodity producer may presents itself as the expenditure of general human labor”, 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 “ which is the private affair, having at the same time a social character”.but fails in correct understanding of the contradiction. According to the argument o the textbook the labor of commodity producers is “ a social labor in essence” but “ the social character of their labor in the process of production remains hidden”, and it “finds _expression_ only in the exchange process” and these situations are considered as a “contradiction”
 The above mentioned understanding pf “contradiction” is the necessary consequence of considering value as a commodity producer’s labor i.e. the value creating substance of value as a quality of abstract human labor of actual 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 social labor doesn’t lie in what is indicated in the textbook. 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 doesn’t as it is said in the textbook, in that a general quality of the commodity producer’s labor as being abstract human labor i.e. social labor shows itself in the social relation between the several producer’s labors which are equal human labor because of their properties of being abstract human labor, but it lies in the general quality confirmed in the light of use-value as a result of actual labor, consequently a social character of commodity producer’s labor appears as an objective quality of product i.e. a quality of things in itself, thus the property of being abstract human labor of each commodity producer’s actual labor doesn’t 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 been realized in the process of production doesn’t represent itself in  the exchange process. It’s matter of course that in the process of production exists a value creating substance and if the actual labor isn’t 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 human labor and a social character of commodity producing labor is  also reflected.
 The abstract human labor as a substance of value is realized in the world of commodities, where the total social labor is divided in a certain proportion according to the material properties of products i.e. the relation of supply and demand for each commodity. The labor of a commodity producers as the expenditure  of human labor-power in the physiological sense conforms value in its quality of being abstract human labor.
 However such expenditure as a substance of value itself doesn’t turn into abstract human labor, but when the actual human labor power is 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 clear that a conception of the social labor is formed incorrectly in the textbook. Next we examine this point

3.The conception of social labor apart from value
 
   The Textbook determines abstract human labor as follows;
 “ Abstract labor, which forms the value of a commodity, is a historical category, a specific form of social labor belonging to commodity economy only.......The social 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”
 Thus in the Textbook it is considered that the social character 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”

     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 cannot be made clear by finding the ground of the exchange of commodities in the social labor.
 As abstract human labor is determined in the textbook as “a specific form of social labor” and as a social character of commodity producer’s labor is asserted to “ find _expression_ only in the exchange process”, it follows that the abstract human labor which is “ a specific form of social labor” must appear in the exchange process. If we take this conception about the abstract human labor for granted, it would become clear why the textbook 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 cannot take a form by itself. Therefore the determination of it as “a specific form of social labor” means that the textbook considers the abstract human labor as being equal to value, so that it also becomes understandable that the textbook assert this human labor reveals itself in the exchange process.
 This also means, on the other hand, hat the textbook reduces value to a substance, understanding it as an amount of social labor. Thus the failure of taking abstract human  labor for obviously means that the abstract human labor is described as a certain exchange ratio 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 quantitative determination.
 Thus the assertion ,made by the textbook, that, reducing the exchange of commodities to a social labor” the value is a social labor of commodity producers embodied in the commodities” is based upon commodity producers embodied in the commodities” 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 “specific form of social labor” determined as an abstract human labor, and so that it is found to be a necessary 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 textbook.  

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

  In the textbook, it is out of consideration 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 magnitude of value in expressed as a social labor, that is say, value and a social labor are reduced to a mere amount, thus giving a definition of a abstract human labor as “ a form to which a social labor is reduced”
 Therefore it is not difficult to expect that in the textbook the analysis of value-form made by Marx is beyond understanding. The textbook ,before referring to value-form, declares that “ The value of a commodity is created by labor in the process of production, but it can only through the comparison of one commodity with another in the process of exchange i.e. through exchange-value.” Here is no conception of exchange value as a form of value, but the magnitude 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 textbook doesn’t 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’s 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 fourthly explains a money conforming process as a development of value-form.
 However as for analysis of value-form the textbook refers only to the development of value-form and a money conforming process is mentioned 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 “Criticism of Political Economy”
 It becomes clear that in the textbook 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 “a specific form of social labor”,thus reducing it to the exchange ratio.”
 The textbook explains a simple form of value as follows;”Behind the equality of these commodities is concealed the equal expenditure of labor in producing them.”
 To be sure, the equation of two commodities indicates that two sort of labors spent on their production are equal as being human labor.
 But in the analysis of value-form there is no necessity for general affirmation of the general property of being human labor, nor false explanation by means of such obscure _expression_ as “hidden”. The form in which the general property of human labor is expressed, according to the textbook’s _expression_ the “hidden” relation is necessary to be pointed out.
 In spite of this the textbook considers it sufficient to indicate as “hidden” in order to make that relation clear , thus ignoring the role of value-form.
  Comparing a viewpoint about abstract human labor in the analysis of the creation of value with a problem of reduction in the _expression_ of value, Marx gives a following consideration;
   
   “ in tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labor-power is expended. Both ,therefore ,possess the general property of human labor, and ,may, therefore, in certain cases, such as in the production of value, have to be considered under this aspect alone. There is noting mysterious in this. But in the _expression_ of value there is a complete turn of the tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that weaving creates the value of linen, not by virtue of being weaving, as such, but by means of its general property of being human labor? Simply by opposing to weaving that other particular form of concrete labor (in this instance tailoring),which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving”(“Capital”)
  
  The textbook takes no thought of “ a complete turn of the tables”, thus fails in correct understanding of a specific form of social labor.

   5. The misunderstanding  of fetishism of commodities

 The result is the incorrect consideration of the textbook about the fetishism of commodities.
   
     “ Under the condition of private property of means of production a social relation between men in the process of production reveals itself only in exchanging one article for another......thus in the commodity economy based upon the private property of means of production the productive relation between men represents itself nothing but as the relation between articles. The fetishism of commodities  characteristic to the commodity production consists in the materialization of the productive relation.”(“The textbook”)
 The fetishism of commodities isn’t expressed by means of indicating the productive relation between men expressed in the relation between commodities.
  Marx insists that the fetishistic character of commodities has its origin in the form of commodities, whereas the textbook considers a value-form as a mere exchange ratio i.e. that in which the magnitude of abstract human labor is expressed, naturally failing in exposing the fetishism of commodities.
  It is impossible by mere affirmation of the materialization of productive relation that the perceptible labor product becomes insensible, besides “ the materialization” is considered in the textbook as a social relation between men expressed in the exchange relation between articles, in spite of this it only means that the labor of commodity producers abstract labor, consequently “ the materialization” is also comprehended incorrectly.
  The materialization is never to be made clear by means of studying each commodity separately and giving a explanation of value caused from the equality of different kinds of labor as a property of being human labor, but it realizes in nothing but where this aspect is “ completely turned” in the _expression_ of value, consequently the social relation between men is materialized, since that the value of in another commodity cannot be expressed i itself or its own use value, but in other commodity’s use value, thus exposing the mystery of the fetishism of commodities-that is in fact, exposing the way of _expression_ of value.

   6. What is the reason of the distortion of the commodity theory?

      Then, where the modification of Marx’s theory about commodity is originated from? To say a conclusion, it was a necessary result of industrialization and kolkhozation which has been realized out of accordance with  the socialist principle in Soviet Union.
The socialism is incompatible with a commodity production, accordingly it is necessary to introduce a socialist principle into planning and administration and intend to abolish a relation based upon commodities for the purpose of proceeding the construction of socialism. And to proceed the construction of socialism a commodity must be fully comprehended.
   In the period pf establishment of a soviet economic system a calculation by means of labor-time has never adopted from the beginning to this day. At the first stage the socialization of labor was not fully accomplished, so it was impossible to introduce the calculation by means of labor-time from the beginning. Industrialization and kolkhozation are realized under the bureaucratic control, from this resulted the gradation of labor. Under the context of the profit sharing in proportion to the quality and quantity of labor, wages paid to laborers are unequal, under this condition, though the socialization of labor had been accomplished, it was impossible to abolish the calculation by means of labor-time.
 Today in Soviet Union industrialization and kolkhozation are carried out and the productive power is developed by means of socialization of labor, whereas the abolishment of the value of commodities is an indispensable factor reconstruct the gradation of labor in Soviet Union (which exists not only in the government industry, but also in the kolkhoz). and the gradation of labor is a fundamental condition of continuance of the bureaucracy as a governance class, since that the bureaucratic class finds its own advantage in maintaining the value of commodities.

    Thus given up the undertaking of exposing a true nature of the value of commodities and reorganizing the production for the purpose of its abolishment, and the theory of Marx which expose a true nature of the value of a commodity is inevitably falsified. 
  The textbook exclude the law of value from the elemental economic law of capitalism, here lies a fundamental mistaken. In the transitional period of society in which the means of production are possessed by the government, the products also belong to the government, consequently the labors of individual laborer  are extended as a collective labor power, the result of which ,that is, the products represent itself as a social labor. Why this social labor is indicated not by means of labor-time, but money in Soviet Union, it is because the gradation of labor exists in it and as a result of that in the expenditure of labor is indicated not only by means of labor-time, but money. Therefore the value of commodities un Soviet Union doesn’t indicates the essential nature of a commodity, in which a private labor turns into a social labor. In Soviet Union the labor products of laborer represent itself as a social labor, it is because the indication of expenditure of labor has got a bureaucratic distortion because of the gradation of labor and the expenditure of labor is indicated by means of money, thus the indication of products by means of labor-time has come to be impossible.
 For that reason, when the value in Soviet Union, the character of which is equivalent to the value of commodities, is made clear and that value is asserted to show the essence of the value of commodities, is made clear and that value is asserted to show the essence of the value of commodities in the capitalist society in which the previous mode of production prevails, the inevitable result is that the theory of Marx considering the value labor is thrown away.
 From the viewpoint of Marx’s theory on value it is clear that the value of commodities in Soviet Union is to be on the way to abolishment, but it remains not on that way because of the bureaucratic distortion of the mode of production. And by exposing the reason why it doesn’t start to perish, we can show the scheme of overthrowing the bureaucracy and reorganizing the production according to the socialist principle.
 In this way the textbook extracts its consideration about the character of the value of a commodity from that of Soviet Union nd looks upon it as common to the value of a commodity from that of Soviet Union and looks upon it as common to the value of the capitalist society, thus denying the necessity of abolishing the value of a commodity in the transitional period and protecting the bureaucratic advantage. Now we can obviously see the meaning of the critique on the textbook’s commodity theory which is nothing but the ideology for the bureaucratic government.

   Section2; The critique of the chapters about capitalism

   1. The critique of the theory of “ the foundation of capitalism”

    The textbook gives a following definition about “  the foundation of capitalism”; “ The bases of the capitalism is capitalist property in the means of production. Capitalist  property in the means of production means the private property of the capitalist,
not derived from their own labor and used for expoitation of wage-workers,”
 Determining the above-mentioned analysis of the commodity as that of the simple commodity production, the textbook proceeds from the analysis of commodity to the transformation of money into capital and fail in proceeding the analysis of commodity to that of capital. Instead, after analyzing the commodity, it refers to the primitive accumulation of capital and then describes the formation of the capitalist mode of production in accordance with the historical facts.
 As a result of that, in the chapter regarding to capital, surplus value and the fundamental economic laws of capitalism, such an argumentation as “basis of capitalism is the capitalist property in the means of production” is obviously made on the premise of the capitalist property. This definition is resulted from the arguementation of the textbook, but it is false.
  In the first place, the capitalist property of means of production conforms the premise of the capitalist mode of production, and at the same time is resulted from that, consequently the analysis of capitalism cannot be based upon the relation of property but it is necessary to make clear how the property is arisen. Secondly, considering the property as a legal _expression_ of productive relation as a foundation of economic system, the textbook denies that the superstructure is determined by the basis and considers that the foundation of basis consists in the supersystem, thus modifies the theory of Marx.
 The above-mentioned mistaken is resulted from the Stalin’s conception of capitalism which in the analysis the capitalist mode of property fails in showing how the capitalist property of means of production is brought about.
  Different from the above-mentioned conception of the textbook, Marx declares “ the general system of capitalist production is based upon that laborer sells his labor-power in the form of commodities”(“Capital” 453p)
 Next, the determination that “ the capitalist property of means of production is advantageous to the exploitation of wage laborer” is mistaken. The capitalist property is not the means of expoitation, but a legal _expression_ of exploitative relation and it also means a exploitative relation itself.
   Such a mistaken determination is connected with the following conception on capitalism that “ the capitalist mode of production is based upon expoitation of the class of wage-workers by the class of capitalists,”(“The textbook”)
  Such an _expression_ as “ based upon exploitation” indicates the capitalist mode of production as a exploitative relation but it means nothing more.
  The economic theory of Marx never consists in showing that the capitalist society is the class society and that the capitalist mode of production conforms a exploitative relation. These facts have already been pointed out by bourgeois economists before Marx. What Marx points out is in what economical relations this exploitation is accomplished, he perceived the economical form in which surplus labor is extorted from producers and exposed it, and it follows that the above-mentioned conception of the textbook is nothing but a regression of the economic theory of Marx.
 Thus from the recognition of “ based upon the expoitaion” is resulted the determination of the capitalist property as being means of exploitation”, this determination means that no characteristic traits of capitalism is made clear.
  Well. after the determination mentioned above to give a foundation of that, the textbook quotes from “Critique of Gotha Programme” as follows;” The capitalist mode of means of production is based upon the following fact that the mterial means of production, in the form of the capital property and the material means of production, in the form of the capital property and the landed property, are dividied among those who don’t engage in any labor, on the other hand the masses possess only human means of production i.e. the labor-power”(“Critique of Gotha Programme; Critique of Erfurt Programme2)
 In so far as this part it seems that Marx regards the foundation of capitalism as a “ capitalist property of means of production”. But if we take care of the sequence of argument of Marx, we can see that he doesn't deal with the foundation of capitalism there.
 “In any time the division of means of consumption is only resulted from that of means of production. The means of production, however, is one trait of the mode of of production. For example.....(the above-mentioned phrase inserted here)....So far as the factors of production remain thus divided, it follows naturally that the means of production become also divided as they are today.”(op/cit.)
 Marx calls into question here “ the division of means of production” as a trait of the capitalist mode of production is based upon such division of means of production as that of the property of capital and land on the one hand, and of the property of labor-power of producers on the other, thus indicating that based upon that division of means of production occurs the capitalist mode of division of means of consumption. Marx indicates, therefore, one trait of the capitalist mode of production from the viewpoint of division of means of production. So we cannot consider, as to this part, that Marx refers to “ the foundation of capitalism” as in the textbook.
  according to the viewpoint of the textbook, the foundation of the capitalist mode of production consists in the exploitation  and so the capitalist property of means of of production, that is, the foundation of capitalism is used as one of the means of exploitation. But this viewpoint intends to explain the exploitation by reason of man’s property of things without any regard that the exploitation is caused from the social relation, and reduces its agency to the property of things in itself.
  Thus the textbook gives up to make clear the social relation between men as a base of expoitation by way of analyzing the economic type of the relation between things.
  Marx considers the foundation of capitalist mode of production as consists in “ the sale of labor-power as a commodity” by reasons of its intermediating agency between the human social relation and that of its capitals and here lies the foundation of the relation between capitals. The difference between Marx and the textbook reduces expoitation to the property of things, or considered it to be caused from the class relation between men.
  Stalin points out that the capitalist’s exploitation of surplus labor based upon the transformation of labor power into the commodity occurs through the exchange of commodities, but fails understanding that this exploitation is carried out according to the capitalist law of appropriation i.e. the separation of capital and labor. As a result of that he cannot understand the law of capital accumulation and thus cannot point out how the capitalist property of means of production is brought about.
 Therefore Stalin considers the class relation between the capitalist and the laborer only on the level of that between the the rich and the poor, thus remains behind the marxist’s point of view regarding the economic position and the revolutionary part of the proletariat.
  Therfore Stalin considers that the inevitability of the proletarian revolution lies in the non-organized property of capitalism and the anarchy of production, based upon which the capitalist mode of production. Here lies the foundation of viewpoint considering the capitalist property of means of production as the foundation of capitalism.

       2. The critique of the conception of “ the use value of a commodity, that is, labor power”

   The textbook proposing “ Let us now pass to examining the essential nature of exploitation.”(“The textbook”) argues the transformation of money into capital and the production of surplus value.
    “Capitalism is commodity production at the highest stage of its development, when labor-power too becomes a commodity. With the transformation of labor-power into a commodity, commodity production takes on a universal character. Capitalist production is based on wage-labor, and the hiring of a worker by a capitalistic nothing else than the buying and selling of the commodity labor-power; the worker sells his labor-power and capitalist buy it.”(“The textbook”)
  “When he has hired a worker, a capitalist has the worker’s labor-power at his free disposal. The capitalist uses this labor-power in the process of production, that is, the value-creating process. In this way the value of labor-power as a commodity is a property of this commodity as a source of value, and that a source of more value than it has itself”(op.cit)
  “ Surplus-value is the value created by the labor of a wage-worker over and above the value of his labor-power and appropriated by the capitalist without payment. Thus surplus labor is the result of the worker’s unpaid labor”(op.cit)

      The point at issue, here, is that the capitalist’s appropriation of surplus labor is explained by reason of “ the use value of labor-power as a commodity”　As a result of that the mechanism of exploitation is describrd entirely by means of quotations from the chapter 4 of “ concerning the trabsformation of money into capital and from the chapter 7 concerning the labor process and the process of producing surplus value.
  But the textbook contains the two-fold errors, first, it considers the use value of labor-power which conforms a source of value as “a source of much more value”,secondly this “a source of more value” as “ the use value of labor -power as a commodity”. As a result of that the production of surplus value is regarded not as a product of the relation of capital, but as a property of a commodity as being labor -power.
  Such a mistaken of the textbook is brought about because of being deceived by the fetishistIC property of commodities. The exchange of commodities is carried out on the base of of value of social labor which is crystalized and adhered to those use values of commodities which are varied in their use value as in the property of things, and that is in such way that the products surly useful to others are exchanged on the basis of the value of themselves which is determined by the social relation.
  After all the value is realized in the form of human labor is different as a product, but equal as a labor time, the equality as being human labor contained in the product has become evident here for the first time.
  The value of a product, accordingly, is not immediately determined by the labor time expended to produce it, but realized on the base of the social relation of it( the material relation in which the human relation is expressed), namely, it is determined by the labor time necessary for its production. That is to say, the individual labor time doesn’t immediately conform value, but in incalculable way , it only takes part in conforming the socially necessary labor time which is based upon the social condition of production for that kind of product. 
  Thus, although the value consists of human labor power and a property of human being, the individual labor power doesn't immediately conform the socially necessary labor time, but the socially necessary labor time which determines value is formed by the social relation of products without any relation to the individual labor time. for that reason, it seems that the product is in itself endowed with value.
  From this comes a common idea that because of things possessing value they must be acquired by means of exchange, the use value of them can be consumed without exchange, and hence brought such an upset conception of Baily that “ Value is a property of things, riches(use value)man,”(“Capital”97p)
  The textbook explains the value of labor by reason of “ the needs of life “ of laborers and considers it as a property of things,(in fact the needs of laborers are determined by the value of labor power), on the other hand, considering the use value of labor power as “a source of more value” and it as a property of the capitalist who has brought this commodity.
  When the textbook determines the production of value as “ the use value of labor power as a commodity”, it means, on one hand, that the textbook, deceived by the fetishistic character of commodity, considers the use value of labor power as a property of the capitalist who has bought this commodity ,because the use value of labor power, as a property of labor power as things, is caused from its single property of being source of value, and the capitalist consumes this use value to produce value. 
  Thus the textbook reduces a property of capitalist to that of things, and on the other hand, determining this property of capitalist as “ the use value of a commodity”, considers that his property has its origin in the commodity.
   After all, the conception of the textbook is shortly described as follows: the exploitation is caused from the use value of labor which produce value, can sell as a commodity and consumed by the capitalist.
   Then, in what way the theory of Marx regarding capital relation receives modification from the textbook’s conception?

       In “ Capital” we can read an argumentation of Marx in which the labor of the production of value is considered as the use value of a commodity. Marx, in the analysis of the process of the production of surplus value, point out “ the value of labor-power, and the value which that labor creates in the labor-process, are two entirely different magnitudes”(“Capital” 208p) and  then indicates that “ what really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses of being a source not only of value but of more value than it has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labor-power”(“ Capital”, 208p), moreover in the chapter of the working day he describes the voice of laborer, “ The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it”(“Capital” 248p)  Marx argues here about the use value for which the capitalist purchases the labor-power as a commodity, but doesn't explain the actual production of value by reason of use value of a commodity. In the introduction of “ Wage-labor and Capital”, Engels indicates as follows: “ It possesses a special property of being  a value creating power , and that, a source of value than it has it self”


       3. The critique of the conception of the process of direct production

  “ A worker’s labor, under capitalism, is a process of use by the capitalist of the commodity labor-power, or a process of extraction of surplus-value from the worker by the capitalist. The labor-process is characterized, under capitalism, by two fundamental peculiarities. First, the worker works under the control of the capitalist to whom the worker’s labor belongs. Second, not only does the worker’s labor belong to the capitalist but also the product of this labor. These peculialities of labor-process transform the wage-worker’s labor into a heavy and hateful burden,(“The textbook”)
    this description of the direct process of production exposes the lack of the understanding of the textbook as to the analysis of capital relation made by Marx.
  In the first place, why labor-process under the condition of capitalism should be described as a “ process of use by capitalist of the commodity labor-power”? labor-power, if it has been purchased by the capitalist, is no longer a commodity.  A commodity possesses a two-fold character of having value and at the same time being use-value, and as far as having this two-fold character, it remains to be commodity. Therefore the commodity which is bought by the purchaser for its use-value has lost its consequently it is only in its common use that the word of commodity denote this use value.
  For this reason, according not to the common use describing the labor as “ a process of use by the capitalist of the commodity labor-power, or a process of extraction of surplus value from the worker by the capitalist”, but to the scientific terminology, the process of extracting surplus value is described to be that of consuming a commodity, thus the conception of the production of surplus value as being labor-power which belong to the capitalist in the form of a commodity is proved.
     In a correct denomination, the capitalist consumes labor-power, but not “labor-power as a commodity”. The use-value of labor-power consists in its being a source of value and it is on the base of capital relation, but not on the base of “ use value of a commodity as being labor-power” that the labor-power itself produces value.
     Next, the textbook indicates “ two fundamental peculiarities” of the labor-process and from this introduces a specific character of the labor of wage-laborers. But this is false. The “ two fundamental peculiarities” of the labor-process indicated in  the textbook means nothing but “ two characteristic phenomena”(“Capital” 199p) in the labor process, turned into a process by which the capitalist consumes labor-power, which Marx point out at the end of the section 1” The Labor Process “ of chapter 5 “The Labor-Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value”, and that is before “ changes in the method of production by the subordination of labor to capital(“Capital” 199p) is made clear, consequently Marx by no means intends to make clear the relation of capital and labor in the direct process of production, but only indicates that the laborer works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labor belongs and that the product is the property of the capitalist.
    In spite of this, the explanation of the textbook as to the peculiarity of the labor of wage laborer by reason of the “ two fundamental peculiarities” is resulted from its conception of the production of value as “ the use-value of a commodity” that is labor-power and the production of value based upon the capital relation is explained to be the use-value of a commodity,namely a property a commodity, thus concealing the capital relation.
   Marx, at the end of the part 3 “ The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value” indicates three traits particular to the direct process of production of capital as follows: 1. Capital acquired the command over labor, 2. Capital developed into a coercive relation, which compels the working class to do more work, 3. The means of production are changed into means for the absorption of the labor of others and it employ the laborer, whereas the textbook lacks in the determinations of 2.and 3, thus fails in pointing out any peculiarities of capital relation.
  After all, the textbook indicates these peculiarities only based upon the analysis of the process of production of capitals as the labor-process, but doesn’t refer to that from the viewpoint of the production of value. It is no wonder that the textbook cannot make clear the peculiarities of capital relation.

      4. The critique of the conception of “semblance” of exploitation

   “ In contrast to the previous forms of exploitation-slave-owning and feudal-capitalist exploitation is masked. When the wage-workers sells his labor-power to the capitalist, this transaction appears at first sight to be an ordinary transaction between commodity owners, the usual exchange of a commodity against money ,carried out in accord with the law of value. The transaction of buying and selling labor-power, however, is merely the outward from behind which is hidden the exploitation of the worker by the capitalst, the apropriation by the capitalist, without any equivalent, of the worker’s unpaid labor”(“The textbook”)
   “ buying and selling labor-power, however, is merely the outward form being which is hidden the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, the appropriation by the capitalist, without any equivalent, of the worker’s unpaid labor.”(“The textbook”)

    The textbook, based upon the argumentation which exposes “ a semblance appertaining to the process of circulation” in Part7, chapter 22,section 1 of “Capital”, asserts as mentioned above that the purchase and sale of labor-power between capitalist and laborer is a mere “ semblance”. This ,however,is a falicifying  of ”Capital” and asserts quite different thought.
  The textbook explains a semblance of the purchase and sale of labor-power between capitalist and laborer by reason of the ownership of capitalist of unpaid labor resulted from such relation of exchange subsisting between them. This explanation doesn't by any means make clear “ a semblance” of purchase and sale of labor, because the purchase and sale of labor-power between capitalist and laborer means nothing but the purchased and sale of labor-power as a commodity and this exchange has already been accomplished when capitalist appropriates the disposal of labor-power.  Therefore after this exchange has been accomplished, the consumption of labor-power and the appropriation of surplus value is carried out by capitalist without any relation to the exchange relation and it is impossible to explain by reason of “ the appropriation of unpaid labor” that the exchange relation, that is, the purchase and sale of labor-power between capitalist and laborer.
  The textbook doesn't make any distinction between “ two different process “ in the exchange of capital and labor-power made clear by Marx in his “ Outline of Criticism of Political Economy”.  As a result pf that, according to the conception of the textbook, the purchase and sale of labor-power is regarded equal to the “exchange of capital and labor” and based upon the latter being not exchange of eqivalentit assert a “ semblance od purchase and sale of labor-power”

    Thus it is now made clear why the textbook considers the consumption of labor-power as “ use value of labor-power a commodity”. It, regarding such two process as “exchange of capital and labor” and the purchase and sale of labor-power followed by consumption of labor-power by means of capital, considers the latter as “ use value of a commodity”, thus reduces to a single process i.e. the purchase and sale of commodities, that is labor-power. And based upon the exploitation and exchange of non-equivalents subsisting in this single process, the textbook asserts a “semblance “ of purchase and sale of labor-power.
  
    Marx, however, makes clear that the exchange relation between capitalist and laborer becomes a “ semblance appertaining to the process of circulation” not as such. He, pointing out that the capital which is exchanged for labor-power is itself a portion of the product of other’s labor appropriated without an equivalent and must be replaced by the producer with an added surplus, exposes that the purchase and sale of labor-power becomes a semblance of exchange of equivalents only in the process of circulation, consequently, he doesn't maintain that by the accomplishment of the second process the purchase and sale of labor-power as a first process which appears to be an exchange of equivalents becomes a “ semblance”. This is known from that Marx proves the semblance of exchange relation in the first process, insisting as follows: “ The ever repeated purchase and sale of labor-power is now mere form; what really takes place is this-the capitalist again and again appropriates, without equivalent, a portion of the the previously materialized labor of others, and exchange it for a greater quantity of living labor”
  After all, the conception of “ semblance” of the textbook is formed only by means of considering the second process which doesn’t belong to the purchase and sale of labor-power as that, thus fails in analyzing correctly the capital relation and understanding the conversion of labor-power to commodity.

     5. The subordination of laborer doesn’t take into consideration

    The textbook put an end to chapter 7 regarding accumulation of capital by pointing out the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, proposed by Engels and describes “ the historical process of capitalist accumulation “ of “Capital” ,chapter 23 in the end of chapter14 “Crisis”.
     This way of compliance shows evidently that the textbook attaches importance to the fundamental contradictions of Engels as an economical laws of capitalist movement, and as for the historical tendency of Marx, only estimates its mediate role to the imperialism, that is to say, it puts Engels’s argument of the fundamental contradiction instead of Marx’s description of inevitability of the proletarian revolution.
    This means that the textbook still follows Stalin and confuses the contradiction between productive powers and productive relations which is pointed out by Marx in the introduction of “The Criticism of Political Economy” and that between a social quality of production and a private quality of appropriation as a fundamental contradiction which the capitalist production cannot overcome.
   Because of this confusion the textbook fails in understanding correctly that Marx, in the passage describing a historical tendency in the chapter of “Crisis” because of its failure in correct understanding of the above-mentioned description, whereas to the chapter of “ Crisis” is more suitable to the fundamental contradiction described by Engels.
   Such an error of the textbook is brought out on the basis of modification of Marx’s theory in the chapter regarding Capital and Surplus Value.
   Marx, in the introduction of “ General contract of First International”, explains the class subordination of proletariat based upon its economic position as follows:
 
  "That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of   the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence; 

  That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the  great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means;"
("The International Workingmen's Association General Rules")
 

   
  
   It is necessary to grasp the meaning of economic subordination of laborers previously to the chapter regarding capital and surplus value and following chapters.

     6. The cause of the modification of critique of capitalism

    The cause of the modification of Marx’s theory and that of the conception of a commodity are the same. The textbook determines the Soviet relation of production as socialist one and in this relation describes the characteristic traits of capitalist production.
   For example, the textbook considers that the foundation of capitalism consists in the capitalist property of means of production and the capitalist exploitation of laborer, because they are abolished in Soviet Union.
    The textbook determines characteristic traits of capitalism by contrast with the state ownership of Soviet Union, where both private property of means of production and exploitation of labor are abolished.
    The criticism of capitalism made by Marx-Lenin doesn’t lose its meaning as an indicator of socialism construction in the society of transitional period, in which true criticism on capitalism must be carried out by describing the principle of socialism and communism. It is such true criticism of capitalism that make possible to propose an indicator of transformation of transitional state ownership into that of socialism.

   For that reason the bureaucrat were obliged to distort the criticism of capitalism made by Marx-Lenin into that which doesn’t deny Soviet mode of state ownership, thus the way of determination of capitalism by contrast with actual condition of Soviet Union was adopted.
    Marx points out subordination of laborer to owner of means of production as a fundamental factor of rule-subordinate relation. Why the textbook avoids this conclusion? It is because in Soviet Union exist the economic subordination of laborer to the State, based upon which the bureaucrat exploit the surplus-labor of laborer.  Thus the Soviet bureaucrat is completed to distort the criticism of capitalism made by Marx and mutilates its revolutionary meanings.
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20.JOHBUHSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF.
486-0044
TEL:0568-76-4131
FAX 0568-76-4145
miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx