Chapter 10 Methodological differences between two Marxian economists in Japan: Kōzō Uno and Sekisuke Mita

Abstract

Kōzō Uno (1897–1977) was a unique Marxist economist in Japan. The Uno's three-stage theory of the capitalist economy, in a certain sense, was a typical framework in the system of Marxist economic theory. But the method in Uno's Principles of Political Economy (“Principles”) is different from Marx's method in “Capital” and systematic critique of political economy. Since Uno rejected a methodological character of “capital in general” in Marx, Uno's “Principles” was a closed system in a circle. The stage theory of capitalistic development, therefore, had no connection with his general theory (“Principles”). Sekisuke Mita (1906–1975) was a severe critic of Uno's methodology. Mita, a Hegelian philosopher, criticized Uno that the methodology of his “Principles” was Hegelism, and pointed out that the method of Uno's stage theory was positivism. Mita not only criticized Uno, but also criticized orthodox views of Marxian economists who had been influenced by Stalinist views. Mita asserted that the rational dialectic in the logic of “Capital” was founded on the analytical method. The central problem is a methodological meaning of the relationship between the universal and the particular. This article describes the points of rational dialectic in the methodology of Marxian political economy, overcoming Hegelism and positivism.

Citation

Kakuta, S. (2009), "Chapter 10 Methodological differences between two Marxian economists in Japan: Kōzō Uno and Sekisuke Mita", Zarembka, P. (Ed.) Why Capitalism Survives Crises: The Shock Absorbers (Research in Political Economy, Vol. 25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0161-7230(2009)0000025013