teacup. [ 掲示板 ] [ 掲示板作成 ] [ 有料掲示板 ] [ ブログ ]

新着順:68/1520 記事一覧表示 | 《前のページ | 次のページ》

   初版 物神性論 ③

 投稿者:杉本  投稿日:2018年 6月 5日(火)04時11分47秒
  通報 返信・引用 編集済
    初版 物神性論

 ①A commodity seems at first glance to be a self-evident, trivial thing.
The analysis of it yields the insight that it is a very vexatious thing, full of metaphysical subtlety and theological perversities. As mere use-value, it is a sensual thing in which there is nothing portentous, whether I happen to consider it from the viewpoint that its attributes satisfy human needs or that it obtains these attributes only as product of human labour. There is absolutely nothing of a riddle in the fact that man changes by his activity the forms of natural matter in a way which is useful to him. The form of wood, for example, is changed if one makes a table out of it. Nevertheless, the table remains wood, an ordinary, sensual thing. But as soon as it steps out as commodity, it metamorphoses itself into a sensually supersensual thing. It does not only stand with its feet on the ground, but it confronts all other commodities on its head, and develops out of its wooden head caprices which are much more wondrous than if it all of a sudden began to dance.

 ②The mystical character of the commodity thus does not arise in its use-value. It arises just as little out of the value-determinations, considered in themselves. For in the first place, however different the useful labours or productive activities may be, it is a physiological truth that they are functions of a specifically human organism as distinguished from other organisms, and that every such function, whatever its content and its form, is essentially expenditure of human brain, nerve, muscle, organ of perception, etc. In the second place, if we consider that which lies at the basis of the determination of the amount of value (the duration of time of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour), it is clear that the quantity is distinguishable from the quality of labour in a way which is even perceptible with the naked eye. In all conditions, it was the time of labour which the production of necessities costs that had to be of concern to man, although not to the same degree at different levels of development. Finally, as soon as men work for one another in any manner, their labour acquires in addition a social form.

 ③Let us take Robinson Crusoe on his island. Modest as he naturally is, nevertheless he has various needs to satisfy and must therefore perform useful labours of various sorts, make tools, build furniture, tame llamas, fish, hunt etc. We do not refer at this time to praying and other such activities, since our Robinson derives enjoyment from them and regards such activity as recreation. Despite the variety of his productive functions, he knows that they are only various forms of activity of one and the same Robinson, and thus are only different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to divide his time exactly between his various functions. Whether the one takes more space and the other takes less in the totality of his activity depends upon the greater or lesser difficulty which must be overcome for the attainment of the intended useful effect. Experience teaches him that much, and our Robinson who saved watch, diary, ink and pen from the shipwreck begins to keep a set of books about himself like a good Englishman. His inventory contains a list of the objects of use which he possesses, of the various operations which are required for their production, and finally of the labour-time which particular quanta of these various products cost him on the average. All relationships between Robinson and the things which form his self-made wealth are here so simple and transparent that even Mr. Wirth[6] can understand them without particular mental exertion. And nevertheless all essential determinations of value are contained therein.
 ③Robinson Crusoeを彼の島に連れて行きましょう。それでも、彼は自然のように控えめですが、彼は満足するためのさまざまなニーズを持っていますし、さまざまな種類の役に立つ労働をしなければならず、道具を作って家具を作り、ラマを飼い、魚や狩りなどをする必要があります。私たちのロビンソンは彼らからの喜びを引き出し、そのような活動をレクリエーションとみなしているからです。彼の生産的な機能の多様性にもかかわらず、彼は1つの同じロビンソンの様々な形の活動だけであることを知っているので、人間の労働の異なるモードです。必要性そのものは、彼の様々な機能の間で正確に時間を分割するよう強要する。彼の活動の全体において、より多くのスペースとより少ないスペースを必要とするかどうかは、意図された有用な効果の達成のために克服しなければならない、より大きなまたはより少ない困難に依存する。経験は彼に多くのことを教えてくれます。ロビンソンは時計、日記、インク、ペンを難破船から救ってくれました。彼の在庫には、彼が所有する使用目的のリスト、その生産に必要な様々な作業、そして最終的にこれらの様々な製品の特定の数量が彼に平均的にかかる労働時間のリストが含まれている。ロビンソンと彼自身の富を形作るものとの間のすべての関係は、シンプルで透明なので、ワート氏も特別な精神的な努力なしにそれらを理解することができます。それにもかかわらず、価値のすべての本質的な決定がそこに含まれています。

 ④If we now put an organization of free men in Robinson’s place, who work with common means of production and expend their many individual labour-powers consciously as one social labour-power, all the determinations of Robinson’s labour are repeated: but in a social rather than an individual way. Nevertheless, an essential difference emerges. All Robinson’s products were his exclusively personal pro- duct, and were thereby immediately objects of use for him. The total product of the organization is a social product. One part of this product serves again as means of production. It remains social. But another part is used up by the members of the organization as necessities. This part must be divided up among them. The manner of this division will change with the particular manner of the social production-organism itself and the comparable historical level of development of the producers. Only for the sake of the parallel with commodity-production do we presuppose that each producer’s share of necessities of life is determined by his labour-time. In such a case, the labour-time would play a dual role. Its socially planned distribution controls the correct proportion of the various labour-functions to the various needs. On the other hand, the labour-time serves at the same time as the measure of the individual share of the producer in the common labour, and thereby also in the part of the common product which can be used up by individuals. The social relationships of men to their labour and their products of labour remained transparently simple in this case, in production as well as in distribution.
 ④現在、Robinsonの所在地に自由男性組織を置くと、共通の生産手段で働き、多くの個々の労働力を意識的に1つの社会的労働力として費やすと、Robinsonの労働の決定はすべて繰り返されます。個人的な方法よりも。それにもかかわらず、本質的な違いが出てくる。すべてのロビンソンの製品は彼の独占的な個人的生産物であり、それによって彼のためにすぐに使用の対象となりました。組織全体の製品はソーシャルプロダクトです。この製品の一部は、再び生産の手段として役立ちます。それは社会的なままです。しかし、もう一つの部分は組織のメンバーによって必需品として使われています。この部分はそれらの間で分割されなければなりません。この部門の仕方は、社会生産 - 生物そのものの特定のやり方と、生産者の発展の比較可能な歴史的レベルによって変わるだろう。コモディティ・プロダクションと並行してのみ、私たちは、各生産者の生活必需品のシェアは、彼の労働時間によって決定されることを前提としています。このような場合、労働時間は二重の役割を果たすだろう。その社会的に計画された配分は、さまざまなニーズに応じた様々な労働機能の正しい割合を制御します。他方、労働時間は、一般労働における生産者の個々のシェアの尺度と同時に、それによって個人が使い切ることができる共通製品の部分でも機能する。このような場合には、労働者と労働者の社会的関係は、生産と流通の両面において、透明性を保って単純なままであった。

 ⑤Whence comes the puzzling character of the labour-product as soon as it assumes the form of commodity?

 ⑥If men relate their products to one another as values insofar as these objects count as merely objectified husks of homogeneous human labour, there lies at the same time in that relationship the reverse, that their various labours only count as homogeneous human labour when under objectified husk. They relate their various labours to one another as human labour by relating their products to one another as values.
 ⑥人々が同等な人間の労働の客観的な外皮とみなす限り、人々は価値として互いの製品を関連付けるが、それと同時に客観的な殻の下では、その関係は逆になります 。 彼らは、彼らの製品を価値として互いに関連づけることによって、さまざまな労働を人間の労働として互いに関係づけています。

The personal relationship is concealed by the objectified form. So just what a value is does not stand written on its forehead. In order to relate their products to one another as commodities, men are compelled to equate their various labours to abstract human labour.
個人的な関係は、客観化された形式によって隠されている。 だから、価値が何であるかは額に書き込まれません。 彼らの製品を商品として互いに関連付けるために、男性は様々な労働を抽象的な人間の労働と見なすことを強いられます。

do not know it, but they do it, by reducing the material thing to the abstraction, value.

This is a primordial and hence unconsciously instinctive operation of their brain, which necessarily grows out of the particular manner of their material production and the relationships into which this production sets them.

First their relationship exists in a practical mode. Second, however, their relationship exists as relationship for them. The way in which it exists for them or is reflected in their brain arises from the very nature of the relationship. Later, they attempt to get behind the mystery of their own social product by the aid of science, for the determination of a thing as value is their product, just as much as speech.

Now as far as concerns the amount of value, we note that the private labours which are plied independently of one another (but because they are members of the primordial division of labour are dependent upon one another) on all sides are constantly reduced to their socially proportional measure by the fact that in the accidental and perpetually shifting exchange relationships of their products the labour-time which is socially necessary for their production forcibly obtrudes itself as a regulating natural-law, just as the law of gravity does, for example, when the house falls down on one’s head.

The determination of the amount of value by the labour-time is consequently the mystery lurking under the apparent motions of the relative commodity-values. The producers’ own social movement possesses for them the form of a motion of objects under the control of which the producers lie instead of controlling the motion.
したがって、労働時間による価値の量の決定は、相対的な商品価値の見かけの動きの中で潜んでいる謎である。 生産者自身の社会運動は、生産者がその動きを制御するのではなく、その制御下にあるオブジェクトの動きの形態を所有している。

As far as concerns the value-form finally, we note that it is just exactly this form which objectively veils the social relationships of private workers and consequently the social determinations of private labours, instead of laying them bare.



 ⑧Such forms as these constitute precisely the categories of bourgeois economy. They are the socially valid thus objective  forms of thought, for relationships of production of this particular historically determined social mode of production.

 ⑨The private producers only enter into social contact for the first time through their private products: objects.
The social relationships of their labours are and appear consequently not as immediately social relationships of persons in their labours, but as objectified relationships of persons, or social relationships of objects.
The first and most universal manifestation of the object as a social thing, however, is the metamorphosis of the product of labour into a commodity.

 ⑩ The mysticism of the commodity arises, therefore, from the fact that the social determinations of the private labours of the private producers appear to them as social natural determinations of products of labour; from the fact, that is, that the social relationships of production of persons appear as social relationships of objects to one another and to the persons involved.

The relationships of the private workers to the totality of social labour objectify themselves over against them and exist, consequently, for them in the forms of objects. To a society of commodity producers whose universally social relationship of production consists in their behaving toward their products as commodities (hence as values) and their relating their private labours to one another in this objective form as equal human labour, it is Christianity that is the most appropriate form of religion, with its cult of the abstract man ? especially in its bourgeois development, Protestantism, Deism, etc. In the ancient Asian, antique, etc. modes of production, the metamorphosis of the product into a commodity and accordingly the existence of man as commodity-producer plays a subordinate role, which, however, becomes greater the more the communities enter upon the stage of their decline.

Genuine commercial people only exist in the interstices of the ancient world, like the gods of Epicurus or like the Jews in the pores of Polish society.

Those ancient social organisms of production are extraordinarily much more simple and transparent than the bourgeois organism, but they are based either on the immaturity of the individual man who has not yet torn himself free of the umbilicus of the natural species-connection with other men or are based upon immediate master and slave relationships.
それらの古代の社会的生産生物は、ブルジョア生物よりもはるかに単純で透明であるが、他の人とのつながりや自然種の臍の欠損のない未成年者、 即時のマスタとスレーブの関係に基づいています。

They are conditioned by a low level of development of the productive powers of labour by correspondingly restricted relationships of men within their material process of the constitution of life, and consequently to one another and to nature.

This actual restrictedness reflects itself in an idealist mode in the ancient natural and popular religions. The religious reflection of the real world can only disappear as soon as the relationships of practical work-a-day life represent for men daily transparently reasonable relationships to one another and to nature.
この実際の制限は、古代の自然や人気のある宗教における理想主義の様式に反映されています。 現実世界の宗教的な反映は、実用的な日常生活の関係が男性にとって、日常的に透明で合理的な関係を自然と表現するようになるとただ消えてしまいます。

But relationships can only represent themselves as what they are. The form of the social process of life (i.e., of the material process of production) will only cast off its mystic veil of fog once it stands as a product of freely socialized men under their conscious, planned control.
しかし、関係は自分自身を自分のものとして表現することしかできません。 人生の社会的プロセス(すなわち、生産の物質的プロセス)の形態は、意識的で計画された制御下で、自由に社会化された男性の製品として立つと、その霧の神秘的なベールを打ち消すだけである。

For that to happen, however, a material basis of society is demanded or a row of material conditions of existence which are themselves again the primordial product of a long and painful history of development.

 ⑪Political economy has by now, to be sure, analysed value and amount of value, even if incompletely.
It has never even so much as posed the question: Why does labour manifest itself in value and the measure of labour by its temporal duration manifest itself in amount of value?
Forms upon whose foreheads it is written that they belong to a social formation wherein the process of production masters men but not yet does man master the process of production ? such forms count for their bourgeois consciousness as just such a self-evident natural necessity as productive labour itself.
このような形態は、生産的生産のような自明な自然の必需性としてのブルジョワ意識を意味する 労働そのもの。

 ⑫Just how drastically a section of the economists is deceived by the fetishism which sticks to the world of commodities (or by the objective illusion of the social determinations of labour) is proved among other things by the tediously pointless contention about the role of nature in the formation of exchange-value. Since exchange-value is a determinate social style of expressing the labour which has been applied to a thing, it can no more contain natural matter than the rate of exchange, for example.
 ⑫経済界の一部門が、商品の世界にこだわったフェチシズム(または労働の社会的決定の客観的な錯覚)にどれほど騙されているかは、とりわけ、 交換価値の形成。 交換価値は物に適用された労働を表現する決定的な社会的スタイルであるため、例えば交換の割合よりも自然のものを含むことはできません。

 ⑬The commodity form was still relatively easy to see through as the most universal and most undeveloped form of bourgeois production, which for that reason appears even in earlier periods of production, although not in the same prevailing (and hence characteristic) way. But as for more concrete forms like Capital, for example? The fetishism of classical economics here becomes palpable.
 ⑬ 商品形態は、それゆえ同じ理由で(したがって特徴的な)方法ではないが、それゆえに、生産性の最も初期の段階でさえ現れるブルジョワ生産の最も普遍的かつ未開発の形態として見ても比較的容易であった。しかし、例えばキャピタルのようなより具体的なフォームについては、ここの古典的経済学のフェチシズムは触知できるようになる。

 In order not to anticipate, however, let another example concerning the commodity-form itself suffice. It has been observed that in the relationship of commodity to commodity (e.g., of shoe to shoe-shine boy) the use-value of the shoe-shine boy (i.e., the utility of his real, material properties) is completely irrelevant to the shoe. The shoeshine boy is of interest to the commodity, shoe, only as form of appearance of its own value. So if commodities could speak, they would say: ‘Our use-value may be of interest to a man. But it does not inhere in us insofar as we are things. It is our exchange-value that inheres in us as things. Our own circulation as commodity-things proves that. It is only as exchange-values that we relate ourselves to one another.’ Now just listen to how the economists speak forth from the very soul of the commodity: ‘Value (exchange-value) is a property of things, riches (use-value) of man. Value, in this sense, necessarily implies exchanges, riches do not.’ (Anonymous, 1821) ‘Riches (use-value) are the attribute of man; value is the attribute of commodities. A man or a community is rich; a pearl or a diamond is valuable . . . A pearl or a diamond is valuable as a pearl or diamond .’ (S. Bailey) Up to now, no chemist has discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond. Our authors, who lay claim to special critical depth find, nevertheless, that use-value inheres in objects independently of their material properties, but their exchange-value on the other hand inheres in them as objects. The remarkable circumstance that the use-value of things realizes itself for men without exchange (thus, in the immediate relationship between thing and man), but their value on the other hand realizes itself only in exchange (that is, in a social process) is what strengthens them in their belief. Who is not reminded here of that excellent Dogberry who teaches the night-watchman Seacoal, ‘To be a well-favoured man is the gift of Fortune, but to write and read comes by Nature.’ (Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene 3.)



価値観は、この意味で、必然的に交換を意味し、富は持たない」(匿名、1821) '富は、人の属性である。値は商品の属性です。人や地域社会は豊かです。真珠やダイヤモンドは貴重です。 。 。真珠やダイヤモンドは真珠やダイヤモンドとして価値があります」(S. Bailey)今まで、化学者は真珠やダイヤモンドの交換価値を発見していません。


 ⑭The commodity is immediate unity of use-value and exchange-value, thus of two opposed entities. Thus it is an immediate contradiction. This contradiction must enter upon a development just as soon as it is no longer considered as hitherto in an analytic manner (at one time from the viewpoint of use-value and at another from the viewpoint of exchange-value) but is really related to other commodities as a totality. The real relating of commodities to one another, however, is their process of exchange.
 ⑭商品は、使用価値と交換価値が直接的に結びついているため、2つの相反する規定が存在します。 したがって、それは直ちに矛盾です。 この矛盾は、分析的なやり方(これまでのところ、使用価値の観点から、また交換価値という観点からは別のものとして)とはもはや考えられなくなったばかりでなく、実際に他の 全商品としての商品。 しかし、商品の実際の関係は、彼らの交換のプロセスです。

1. ‘The concept, which is only subjective at first, marches ahead in accordance with its own proper activity to objectify itself, without needing any external material or stuff for the purpose.’ Hegel, Logik, p. 367, Encyclopaedia I.

2. ‘In a nut-shell’; that is, potentially. ? A.D.

3. It is scarcely surprising that economists have overlooked the form-content of the relative value-expression (subjected as they are to the influence of material interests), if professional logicians before Hegel even overlooked the content of form in the paradigms of judgments and conclusions.

4. Hegelian term, including Identity, Difference, Contradiction. ? A.D.

5. There is something special about such reflection-determinations. This man here is (e.g.) only King, because other men behave towards him like subjects. They believe, however, that they are subjects because he is King.

6. Hack economist of Marx’s day.


新着順:68/1520 《前のページ | 次のページ》