Most people today, it is probably safe to say, will readily recognise how the phenomenon of crisis is an inevitable peculiarity of capitalist society. Indeed, it has already become clear that those who, more recently, deny crisis as an inevitable manifestation of the contradictions of capitalism are not able to demonstrate this denial theoretically. This denial of the inevitability of crisis is inspired by the fact that crisis has taken various forms along with the various stages of capitalist development. Instead of speaking of crisis, however, they speak, for example, of war, thereby adding a further level of difficulty. This raises the problem of why a theory of the fundamental principles of political economy, one that strives to explain the general economic laws of capitalism, has never irrefutably demonstrated the inevitability of the phenomenon of crisis. Even in Capital, which, I believe, comes the closest to completing the theory of the fundamental principles of political economy, does not give us such a demonstration. Moreover, among those who study the work of Marx, while there have been many different debates about crisis â not just in our country but all over the world â they often overlap theoretically, yet at the same time, they cannot provide a systematic and consistent explanation of this problem theoretically. It would not be wrong to say that the new condition that we face now, as a result, is that of a decline in concrete analysis, matched by rampant treatments of the so-called business cycles by vulgar economics. However, to substitute a theory of crisis for a theory of business cycles does nothing except to substitute a theory of fundamental principles for a theory of phenomena, or to commit to the mistaken approach of becoming overwhelmed by a theory of phenomena. As a result, foundational theories such as the theory of value unavoidably become buried in a theory of prices, or even become annulled by the latter altogether. No matter how precisely and correctly we develop a systematic theory of fundamental principles out of the theory of value, it would not have any credibility without the demonstration of the inevitability of crisis. For those who accept the Marxist approach to the theory of value, the theory of surplus value, as well as to theories of accumulation, profit, and rent, the clarification of the theory of crisis is still an important, yet unfinished, topic. It still remains unfinished because it is a topic of research that was not completed in Capital. In my opinion, this is not a topic that can afford to remain unexamined.
In my Fundamental Principles of Political Economy,8 I tried in my own way to solve this problem, but since I was, as they say, wandering in the dark and unaware of many things, I was not able to theorise where, within the theory of the fundamental principles of political economy, a theory of crisis had to be demonstrated. Concretely, I did not theoretically postulate how and why the theory of crisis had to be theoretically developed before the logical exposition of commercial capital and after that of loan capital. There have been many debates on this point in the past and I think it has left many readers unsatisfied. Of course, in a book such as this one, which specifically theorises the phenomena of crisis, I should probably re-examine these old debates and describe my position point by point. At present, however, I have neither the time nor the ability to do this. Instead, I would like to state anew my opinions on matters dealing with my Principles of Political Economy: Theory of a Purely Capitalist Society, a text which I mentioned earlier very briefly, and to address those methodological points that I did not consider necessary to enunciate at the time. This should make certain parts of the Fundamental Principles easier to understand, but it has also led to a disproportionately long introductory chapter of this book.
Originally, this book was written on the basis of a series of special lectures that I gave at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Tokyo, and that was published as a correspondence lecture at HÅsei University, titled âPrinciples of Political Economy.â While this book cannot avoid repeating many basic problems, these repetitions should at least make my thinking on these matters more accessible. For the publication of this book, therefore, I have only touched up on my words and phrases here and there, and have not revised the texts. As for the two essays in the Appendix â one from Social Science Research from Tokyo Universityâs Institute of Social Sciences, the other from Research in Political Economy from Hitotsubashi University â both deal with the development of the theory of crisis in the text of Capital, and with what I consider to be its most difficult points.9 While most of these problems are positively represented in the main parts of this book, I have published these essays here, as I believe it is appropriate for me to clarify how my own thinking of these problems has essentially been based on the theoretical exposition of Capital itself. The first essay begins with a comment on the work of Professor Kuruma SamezÅ. His newly published book, Research in the Theory of Crisis, contained criticisms of several points of my understanding of his theory of crisis, but I did not feel it was especially necessary to respond to his criticisms explicitly. And even if my own understanding of his text was insufficient or mistaken, it does not change the point of my argument itself in this essay. I have therefore reprinted the text in its original version. The one and only point that I felt was meaningful in Professor Kurumaâs criticisms is whether wages can be theorised, within the fundamental principles, in cases when wages exceed, or else fall beneath, the value of labour power. I address this problem to a certain extent in this book, but depending on the nature of the matter, we must also refer to fluctuations of other commodities, not to mention wage fluctuations. This point is also made in Capital, as well. Crucially, on this point, the commodity of labour power, which is unlike any other commodity insofar as it cannot be capitalistically produced directly, discloses extremely profound problems which explain the striking difference between the price fluctuations of labour power and those of other commodities. I would like to take up these matters theoretically, provided that I can clarify these difficult problems, but this will have to wait until another occasion.
On this point, which has been considered the most difficult to solve, and which has been discussed repeatedly, I would like to leave it up to my readers and students to judge, for themselves, the extent to which this book, as well as my Fundamental Principles, can clarify these problems and withstand scientific criticism.
KÅzÅ Uno
28Â July, 1954
[Transl. note: This refers to Unoâs Keizaigenron I, II, in UKC, Vols. 1 and 2. The English translation of Keizaigenron II, which is a condensed version of Keizaigenron I, exists in Thomas Sekineâs Principles of Political Economy: Theory of a Purely Capitalist Society, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1980.]
[Transl. note: The English translations of these articles are found at the end of this book, as Appendix 1 and 2. They were originally published in June (Appendix 1) and October (Appendix 2) of 1952.]