Abstract: Value-Form Debates in Japan

SASAKI Ryuji (Rikkyo University)

The aim of my presentation is to show the significance of KURUMA Samezos interpretation of
Marxs value-form theory. Kurumas work, Marxs Theory of the Genesis of Money has been already
translated into English, but his ideas remain largely unknown outside of Japan. UNO Kozo is rather
than Kuruma, since Unos work has already been introduced to English speaking countries through
the works of Thomas Sekine and his translation of Unos work. Among Chinese Marxist scholars,
HIROMATSU Wataru is famous, because his works are available in Chinese. However, Kurumas
interpretation of Capital, especially his understanding of the value-form, is much more exact and
important than Unos and Hiromatsus.
Kuruma explicated many different points of Marxs critique of political economy, but his
particular contributions to the theory of reification are the following:
First, Kuruma fully revealed the fundamental structure of the first part of the first Book of
Capital. As is known, the description of this section is intricate, and as such, has lured various
misinterpretations. Among European or American Marxists, this part has been repeatedly
underappreciated. David Harvey dismissed the section as containing a lot of boring materials,
while other Marxists, such as Hans-Georg Backhaus and Moishe Postone, confuse the theoretical
role of the value-form and that of the fetishism. However, Kuruma explains how Marxs complicated
description is, despite its appearance, actually very consequent and carefully structured. The details
of Kurumas arguments cannot be elaborated here, but his approach to the text from the perspective
of the riddle of the money-form is characteristic to his interpretation. According to Kuruma, Marx
expounds the genesis of the money-form by posing different types of questions concerning the
riddle. Marxs theory of the value-form first analyzes the logic of how the money-form emerges.
Then, the famous fourth section,The Fetish Character of Commodities and the Secret thereof,
discusses why the money-form must emerge. Finally, the second chapter, the theory of the
exchange process, reveals through what the money-form comes into existence. Kurumas
explanations are far from abstract generalizations that purport a definite social relation between
men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. Instead Kuruma
argues that, in the section on fetishism, value-expression via price tag is required because the social
division of labor as based on private labor necessarily requires handling the products of labor as the
value-thing (Wertding) itself, i.e., as commodities. This is the only way that the finite total amount
of labor in society can be properly distributed into the production of various socially-useful products.
In the theory of the value-form, commodity A, say 20 yards of linen, puts itself in relation with
commodity B, 1 coat, and thus expresses its own value in the use-value of the coat. In other words,
linen gives the coat a determination (Bestimmung) as a value-body (Wertkper) whose natural
form counts (gilt) directly as the embodiment of value. The commodity cannot express its own value
alone, and it must equate another commodity to itself so that its value appears in the use-value of
another commodity. Kuruma calls this process of equation the detour of value expression. When
all commodities relate to one commodity that is excluded from all others as a value-body, the general
value-form emerges. The general value-form inevitably comes into existence when commodities
need to express their own values in a general manner, that is, in capitalism where a proper
distribution of a total amount of labor in society can occur only through the mediation of value.
Furthermore, Kuruma explicates how, in the theory of the exchange process, Marx solves its
immanent contradiction: the commodity owner must realize his commodity as use-value first in
order to realize the commodity as value, but the commodity owner must realize his commodity as
value first in order to realize it as use-value. This dilemma can be resolved only through fixing the
general value-form on a certain commodity, such as, say, gold.