|
in Marx's "Manuscript 1861-63"
Professor Ohmura's interpretations and assertions can be outlined
as follows. First, Marx gained a basic understanding of the problem of
"value and price of production" at the end of his manuscript, " Drittes
Capitel. Capital und Profit.," in the process of elucidating the problem
of the "special characteristics of the transfer of value of fixed
capital." Second, the idea of including the theory of the price of
production into "Capital in General" came to Marx at about the time of
beginning of the writing of "Theories of Surplus Value."
Having considered each of these two points, I previously arrived
at the following assertions. First, Marx achieved a basic understanding
of the price of production in "g) Rodbertus" and "h) Ricardo" in the
"Theories of Surplus Value," and not in " Drittes Capitel. Capital und
Profit. " Second, Marx began to entertain the idea of including the
theory of the price of production into "Capital in General" in the time
of the writing of "g) Rodbertus" and "h) Ricardo" in the "Theories of
Surplus Value," and not at about the time of beginning of the writing
of "Theories of Surplus Value."
In response to the foregoing criticisms, I received a detailed
rebuttal from Professor Ohmura. But this did not resolve my doubts
concerning his position. In Volume 37 of The Annals of the Society for
the History of Economic Thought,1999, I had the opportunity to write a
review of Professor Ohmura's new book, "The New MEGA and the Making of
'Das Kapital'". In the course of writing this review, I carefully
re-examined the assertions of Professor Ohmura. Given the limited space
available in the review article, Professor Ohmura pointed out that my
exposition was inadequate. This paper now presents the results of my
examination in full detail.
|