ARTICLES
Marx's Capital and Uno's Principles, Staff Paper (Faculty of Economics, Shinshu University), 1987-04.
.Value-form as a Starting Point of Uno Theory, 1997. Not yet published in a journal,

Value-form as a Starting Point of Uno Theory
The forth, final draft 3 November, 1997
Kiyoshi Nagatani
1
During the World War‡Uperiod academic Marxist research, not to mention political activity, was prohibited by the authorities in Japan. Immediately after the war Marxian economists reopened vigorously their academic activity, as the labor movement under the influence of Marxism regained momentum in the political scene. Twelve leading Marxists including Kozo Uno held a series of study meetings in Tokyo from 1947 through 1948, to discuss theoretical problems in Marx's Capital, such as : whether a commodity in the opening chapter of Capital 1 is a commodity in simple commodity production or one in capitalist production; the law of value in a socialist economy; the relevancy of the method by which to abstract value as congealed labor leaving aside both use values in an exchange relation between two commodities; the connection of the value form with the exchange process of commodities(Chapter 2), and so on.
In the course of discussion on Marx's value form theory, Uno confidently said as follows : " I would like to present a fundamental question: When 20 yards of linen are in the relative form with one coat being in the equivalent form, why does the linen come to have one coat in the equivalent form ? Can we think of such a value equation, without taking into consideration the linen owner's desire to have one coat ?" (Uno, 1948, 157).
Replying to the objection raised to him that commodity owners do not show up yet in the value form, but later in the exchange process(Chapter2), Uno explained further. "In the value expression of the linen it is questionable whether we can abstract from even the linen owner. Without the linen owner, the value expression that 20 yards of linen are worth one coat makes no sense. By nature a commodity emerges on the market as some one's property "(1948, 159).
Samezo Kuruma, a leading opponent to Uno, objected to this idea saying ," Naturally there is no commodity without its owner. But in order to explore the value form in a pure form, we must think of the relation of two commodities, leaving aside both owners. For the purpose of the value expression of the linen, it does not matter whether the equivalent is one coat ,20 pounds of tea or anything else"(1948, 159). And he went on, "Of course the value equation 20 yards of linen equal 1 coat implies that the linen owner wants 1 coat. However what is in question in the theory of value form is not the point, but how the value of linen is expressed, in other words, the question of the form of value expression. The point is that the value of a commodity is expressed in the natural form of another commodity which is exchangeable with it. The question why 1 coat is chosen as the equivalent should be removed from the scope of a pure theory of value form"(1948, 161).
Uno firmly rejected this view. " Leaving the linen owner out of account, how can we say that the linen is in the relative form? Without a linen owner we cannot distinguish between the relative form and the equivalent form. What does it mean that the linen plays an active, the coat an passive role in the value expression? Unless the linen owner wants 1 coat , the value of the linen cannot be expressed in the use value of coat. If even the desire of the linen owner is abstracted, the value of 1 coat too could be expressed in 20 yards of linen. Then 20 yards of linen = 1 coat turns into a mutual value expression like the exchange value in the Classical School, not a relative value expression in the value form"(1948, 162).
We can find passages in Capital strongly supporting Kuruma's assertion, so I suppose his interpretation will be as common in the West as it was in Japan.
Marx says in Chapter 2 of Capital 1 as follows. " Commodities cannot themselves go to market and perform exchanges in their own right. We must ,therefore, have recourse to their guardians, who are the possessors of commodities. Commodities are things, and therefore lack the power to resist man" (Marx, 1976, 178). In the third section on the value form he says ," The expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat also includes its converse: 1 coat = 20 yards of linen "(1976, 140), and " The simplest value-relation is evidently that of one commodity to another of a different kind ( it does not matter which one)"(1976, 139).
Marx's statement above is apparently in support of Kuruma's view. Uno challenged this conventional interpretation. However, it is irrelevant to judge Uno's assertion to be totally different from Marx's. That polarity of two opposite poles in the value equation ,which Marx stressed so often, becomes clearer, when we assume a commodity owner in the equivalent form. We should take note of the fact that whereas Kuruma insisted on the abstraction of both commodity owners in the value expression, Uno did not assume the presence of both owners, but only a owner in the relative form. According to Uno, the simple value equation, or value expression of linen, means such a relation that a linen owner shows up offering his 20 yards in exchange for 1 coat he desires, but a coat owner is not yet on the scene.
If the latter who wants linen shows up later and agrees to this exchange ratio, the exchange can take place immediately. This implies that the coat owner can offer a ratio favorable to him for example 1 coat = 30 yards of linen, so the realization of the exchange is not yet assured. Therefore the relation of two commodities in the value form is that which a linen owner is offering before the exchange is realized, not that of two commodities already exchanged satisfying the wants of both owners. In Capital Marx stressed an active role for the relative form, and the direct exchangeability of the equivalent form as opposed to the non-exchangeability of the relative form, and the unilateral and subjective nature of the value expression. If based on Uno's supposition, all these characteristics of the value form ,which Marx discovered for the first time in history through criticizing the concept of exchange value within the Classical School, can be understood more clearly.
Uno's assertion brings out the following propositions. Firstly , 20 yards of linen = 1 coat does not include 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, for a coat owner may not always desire linen, and even in desiring linen not necessarily in that ratio. Secondly, it follows that the value equation is not reversible. In the case where a coat owner wants linen in the same ratio, we have another value equation 1 coat = 20yards of linen. This is not its reverse. Thirdly, Uno found out a mistake in such an example as 10 yards of linen = 1/2 coat or 40 yards of linen = 2 coats, which Marx thought was a conclusion automatically deduced from 20 yards of linen =1 coat. Because 1 coat is the use value in which the value of 20 yards of linen can be expressed since the linen owner wants it, but whether he wants 2 coats or 1/2 coat( non-use value, since no one can wear a half of a coat ) is not yet certain. Fourthly, Uno began to feel some kind of inconsistency between 20 yards of linen =1 coat in the value form theory and the exchange relation of corn and iron in the first section of Chapter 1 on the commodity. Only when we suppose that corn never fails to be exchanged, or has been exchanged for iron, can we extract a common third which is neither corn nor iron, which Marx claims is human labor as value substance. The value expression is however an exchange relation to be realized if a coat owner desiring linen in such ratio emerges, not an exchange realized already.
A word of caution will be appropriate here in order to forestall a possible criticism that the desire for the use value of the equivalent vanishes as is shown in the value expression with money, or price . Uno's insistence on the commodity owner's desire for the use value of the commodity in the equivalent form is coupled with his insight into the disappearance of commodity owner's desire for the use value of the money commodity gold in the value expression with price. In his view, only by starting with the desire for the use value in the simplest form can we develop its disappearance in the completed value expression, i.e. the money form. In the value expression in price the commodity money gold is no longer wanted as an object of consumption but as an means by which to exchange for commodities. This point will be elaborated later.
Anyway, the question Uno presented in the discussion on the value form cannot be solved based solely on the interpretation of passages given in Marx's writings, since Uno's views were not necessarily presented as an authentic interpretation of Capital, rather as his own understanding of the value form, starting from its interpretation. Uno's question caused hot debates strengthening the confrontation between Uno and Kuruma, and eventually the study meeting was suspended when it reached the " Transformation of Money into Capital", and it was no longer resumed. Later on, Uno developed his own idea into a book entitled The Theory of Value, published in 1947. Criticizing this book Kuruma published a book entitled The Theory of Value Form and Exchange Process in 1953.
Uno's remark did not come from an ad hoc idea at the study group, but from a devotion to studying Capital since 1930, when he published his first article entitled " The Necessity of Money " with a subtitle " A Reconsideration of Hilferding's Theory of Money". In it Uno discerned two different paths leading from commodity to money in Capital; one of commodity production and the other of commodity form, i.e. value form. Uno criticized Hilferding for introducing money from simple commodity production, following the former path, or in other words for lacking the understanding of the logic of value form along the latter path. His assertion at the study group is looked upon as a development on this path.
In closing the discussion Uno elaborated further as follows. " To understand the logic of Capital, especially the value form, it is essential to distinguish between social thing and natural thing, the dialectic of political economy and that of nature. Whereas the latter observes the relation of two objects objectively as set over there outside us, the former sees the relation of two commodities relatively as the one set on our side and the other's opposite side. I think the reason why we cannot comprehend the dialectic of nature clearly comes from this fact"(1948, 177). " The abstraction of value from the exchange relation between two commodities discarding their owners is similar to the abstraction of fruit from pear and apple. Such abstraction cannot be developmental. With the commodity the case is different. The commodity is no longer a use value in itself , but a use value for another person. So it can evolve further. We must comprehend the relation between two commodities subjectively from the view point of the linen owner, not objectively apart from both owners. If we start with such a formalistic abstraction as commodity linen and commodity coat have something in common(a third which is neither linen nor coat), it is difficult to understand the true meaning that the linen is in the relative form with the coat in the equivalent form"(1948, 178).
We can see in this method of the value form theory a starting point of Uno's well known theory of copying method , although yet as a germ. Later on when he completed The Principles of Political Economy by his own reformulation of Marx's Capital, Uno asserted that the copy theory of materialism is still idealistic unless we can copy even a method by which to copy the object of analysis. Sekine explains this method as "the copy of the object's own method of self-abstraction"(Sekine, 1984, 43).

2
In the preface to Theory of Value(1947, 198) Uno writes, " This book is not a literal interpretation of Capital. I have no intention to dissent from it, but to expose my own way of understanding it". The work consists of three chapters : the first is " Substance of Value" , the second " Forms of Value�h, and the third " Essence of Value �h.
Although he thought Marx's method of deducing labor substance from the exchange between corn and iron questionable, he accepted Marx's presentation of value substance as a prerequisite to the value form. Therefore he struggled to reconcile the exchange relation between corn and iron in the first section, and that of linen and coat in the third section of the value form.
Uno confirmed in this book that abstract human labor as the value substance of the commodity establishes itself only in capitalist commodity production, rejecting the presupposition of a society based on simple commodity production, in which every commodity owner is supposed to be a producer of his own commodity. The reduction of abstract human labor from various kinds of concrete useful labor, he thought, is insufficient in the exchange relation between two commodities, and the conceptualization of abstract labor gets more and more mature through the development of forms of value from the commodity through money to capital, and finally in capitalist production, introduced by the emergence of the commodity labor power, it can be fully established. Only the capital which can make any product whatsoever by using wage laborers can establish a social division of labor on a social scale, accomplishing the reduction of human labor as value substance. Uno refereed to this established value substance as the essence of value, presumably under the influence of Hegel 's Logic.
In Capital Marx writes of three kinds of peculiarity with the equivalent form: first a use value becomes the expression of its opposite, value; secondly, useful concrete labor becomes the expression of abstract labor; thirdly, private labor becomes the expression of social labor. Uno accepted these three propositions in this book, yet he stressed that commodity owners cannot express commodity value in terms of the amount of social labor necessary for its production.
He did not deny the presupposition of value substance prior to the value form, yet he defined value as such a nature as being qualitatively the same , only quantitatively different between commodities, without reference to the labor objectified in it. And rejecting Marx's statement on the two factors of the commodity, " use value and value", he declared the two factors as value and use value. He writes, " the commodity cannot become a use value without having value, in other words a commodity does not become the commodity by virtue of being a use value. Therefore value is the first, positive factor, and use value the second, passive or negative factor"( 1947, 289). Uno's claim should not be confounded with Ricardo's theory of value which focuses on value neglecting the use value aspect of the commodity. For Uno placing use value in the second position means an emphasis on the use value aspect inevitably regulating value from behind. By viewing value as the first, use value as the second, aspect of the commodity we can more clearly understand Capital's method of starting the theory of capitalism with the commodity , not with value.
Apparently Marx opens Capital with the commodity based on his fundamental conception that capitalism is a specific historical society, and that its specificity originates from such specific forms as capital, money, and commodity which govern the labor and production process. To begin with specific forms, not with general norms prevalent in any society such as labor or production, characterizes Capital's method. To begin the discussion of the commodity with the use value aspect is not consistent with this method, because the value aspect represents specificity, while the use value aspect refers to production in general. By emphasizing the priority of the value factor, Uno revealed more sharply the opposition between value and use value in the value form theory than Marx did in Capital. Uno's confrontation with Kuruma also can be seen to come from his attempt to sharpen the contrast between those two opposite factors.
Commenting on Marx's title of the second value form " The total or expanded form of value", Uno writes, "The expanded form or the second value form will be more understandable than the total form of value" ( 1973, 299). For, so far as commodities in the equivalent form are chosen by the desire of the linen owner, the number of commodities in the equivalent form are bound to be limited , never "endless" nor "total", as Marx put it in Capital. Although Uno introduced the third general form of value by reversing the second form as Marx did it, in his formula the quantity of the linen as the general equivalent differs depending on the desires of commodity owners in the relative form, unlike Marx's formula in which the quantity of the linen as general equivalent remains the same quantity, 20 yards.
On the fourth form of value, or the money form, Marx states, " Fundamental changes have taken place in the course of the transition from form A to form B, and from form B to form C. As against this, form D differs not at all from form C, except that now instead of linen gold has assumed the universal equivalent form. Gold is in form D what linen was in form C : the universal equivalent" ( 1976, 162 ). Contrary to Marx, in Uno's view of the value form, rather " fundamental changes have taken place" in the transition from form C to form D i.e. the money form. In the course of transition from A to B to C equivalent commodities remain the use values desired by commodity owners in the relative form, because if otherwise they could not have become the equivalents. As against this, in the money form the commodity gold no longer has been chosen as the general equivalent for being the use value desired by commodity owners in the relative form, but as a commodity which has a direct exchangeability with all commodities (except for gold) by nature.
In form C or the general form of value, Marx illustrates the linen in the equivalent form as the same amount 20 yards of linen, whereas Uno changes the amount of linen in the equivalent form depending on the desires of commodity owners in the relative form, since it can never happen that all commodity owners standing in the relative form want the same amount of linen. In form D or the money form where all commodities except for gold line up in the relative form, Marx illustrates the equivalent as the same 2 ounces of gold, whereas Uno changes the amount of gold corresponding to 1 use-value unit of commodities in the relative form. For the first time in the money form or value expression in money ( pricing ), 1 use value unit of every commodity stands in the relative form, hence the quantity of money differs in each value expression depending on the values of commodities in the relative form.
The fact that such a value expression as some units of a commodity = just $100 or $1000 can often be seen on the market by no means contradicts the theory that the value of the commodity be in general expressed in terms of 1 unit use value of the commodity. Rather it supports the theory. Based on it we can make clear that such a value expression is a special one in which the commodity owners wish to sell out as quickly as possible by discount. The fact that the value of the commodity is expressed in 1 use value unit is so common in daily life that even a child in capitalism knows it; however, to solve the necessity of this fact in theory is not an easy task. Uno's theory of the value form may be the first to tackle this problem‡@.

‚R
There arose criticisms among Japanese Marxist economists against Uno's assertions. Most common is the claim that Marx's reference to use value prior to value should be vindicated in the light of the Marx-Engelsian materialist conception of history. It sees the foundation of society in the production process and conceives the use value creating wealth in any society as the primary factor. This applies to the capitalist society as well. Marx's remark that "the commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind"( 1976, 125) represents this conception. Opposing it Uno argued that if this were so Marx might just as well have opened Capital with the labor process which is meant to form the foundation of any society, rather than with the commodity. The claim that the commodity is ,first of all, value, Uno thought, would be more consistent with Marx's method of starting with the commodity as the cell form specific to capitalism.
The second common criticism is that Marx's exposition of the law of value in the first chapter should be vindicated in the light of a society of simple commodity production presupposed by Marx. This position is mostly based on the effort to interpret Capital in accord with the method which claims that the development from commodity to capital should be the reflection of capitalist development in history. In other words, it sees the latter development as the evolution of simple commodity production into capitalist production. Uno's conclusion from the study of Capital is that the presupposition of simple commodity production in the chapter on the commodity is totally false both in history and in theory. With this idea no one can either understand the crucial role of primitive accumulation in the emergence of capitalism, which Marx so vigorously emphasized in Capital 1, nor make clear the value form theory which excludes the direct exchange of products between two small producers.
Uno argued against the assertion that use value and value implies respectively forces of production and relations of production, and that the development of the commodity into money is caused by the contradiction between use value and value, corresponding to the materialist conception of history. Commodities and money, even capital M-C-M' and M�cM' did exist before the advent of capitalism, being external or peripheral to pre-capitalist relations of production which basically constituted pre-capitalist societies. This means that commodities, money and capital by themselves by no means are relations of production which constitute a society. It is not until the conversion of labor power into a commodity that commodity production can prevail over the entirety of production‡A, hence establish a society , that is capitalist. A society of commodity production did exist for the first time in history as a society of capitalist commodity production. It is wrong to assume a society consisting of small commodity producers by considering the commodity form as a relation of production from the beginning. The society of simple commodity production is totally false not only in history but also in theory‡B.
Focusing on the value form issue Kuruma vehemently criticized Uno. " It is by tailoring labor being regarded as common human labor that a coat can express the value of 20 yards of linen. This takes place in equating the tailoring labor to weaving labor by equating a coat to 20 yards of linen , never conversely by equating 20 yards of linen to a coat. To get to the bottom of this problem is the most difficult issue in the value form. Without due reflection on this point, there arises an illusion as if a coat would become the form of value for 20 yards of linen because a coat becomes the object of the linen owner's desire."(1957, 66) " Linen cannot make itself a value by equating itself to a coat, such presentation is a self-centered expression of value. By equating a coat to itself the linen can pronounce itself to be a value"( 1957, 57 ). It is not easy to clearly grasp what Kuruma is saying, but it amounts to saying that the value expression of linen is made by equating a coat to 20 yards of linen, not conversely by equating 20 yards of linen to a coat as Uno would consider it.
Uno repudiated Kuruma, " even if the owner pronounces his linen to be a value by equating a coat to 20 yards of linen, the value expression by the linen owner remains self-centered. The distinction between the two cases, as Kuruma claimed, is not a crucial point in value form theory. The point is that the value expression of a commodity is done by a commodity owner one-sidedly as his offer prior to the exchange of two commodities, and is totally different from the weight expression which is done with two things put on the scale."(1973, 476)
Criticizing Uno's assertion, Kuruma advanced his interpretation of Capital 1. From Marx's passage " the difficulty lies not in comprehending that money is a commodity, but in discovering how, why and by what means a commodity becomes money"( Chapter 2, 1976, 186), he deduced a bold assumption that the value form ( section 3 ), the fetishism of the commodity ( section 4 ) and the process of exchange ( Chapter 2 ) correspond to respectively "how, why and by what means a commodity becomes money".( 1957, 41).
In contrast to Kuruma, replying to criticisms among Marxist economists against his idea in Theory of Value, Uno advanced his understanding of the value form further, eventually to reformulate the first chapter on the commodity in Capital. He came to realize that the determination of the value substance in the first section not only hinders an appropriate demonstration of value forms, but also misleads concerning the understanding of the value substance, which can be fully established later in capitalist production performed by industrial capital. He removed section 2 on the dual character of labor, which is an extension of Marx's demonstration of the value substance in section 1, out of the scope of the first chapter to a later chapter on the labor process. He discarded section 4 on the fetishism of the commodity, which Marx seemingly exposed on the basis of simple commodity production, or a simple commodity economy. For Uno the method of the value form is in conflict with the presuppositions of such a dubious society.
Furthermore he put aside Chapter 2 on the process of exchange, since it assumes the existence of owners on both poles of the relative form and the equivalent form, and allows sometimes the direct exchange between two commodities despite Marx's reference to difficulties with barter. Marx's remark in the chapter is however noteworthy that if commodities be directly exchanged for each other, they are exchanged not as commodities but as products. In other words that barter is not yet a commodity exchange. For Uno what is under consideration in the chapter on the commodity should be confined to a proposed exchange between commodities, which is only actualized later when all commodities are priced in money, and exchanged for money, i.e. bought and sold. The logical development of value forms from the simple, through the expanded, general, and money form, Uno thought, is the precondition for this exchange between commodities and money.
Consequently, Uno's chapter on the commodity came to consist of three sections : the first on two factors , value and use value; the second on the value form; the third on the money form or price.
Reformulation of the chapter on the commodity implies Uno's acute insight that the law of value, which Marx made explicit for the first time in history, can hardly be demonstrated in the first chapter, but only later in the chapter on the value-creating and value- augmentation of capital. Eventually this idea developed further into a reformulation of Capital's entire system. Based on his own view , Uno completed and published a theory of a purely capitalist society, that is Principles of Political Economy ( 1950, 1952 )‡C.

4

Finally in Principles( Old ) Uno renounced Marx's method of developing the value form based on the value substance of labor, and demonstrated his own method by evolving the forms of commodity, money and capital, which he called circulation-forms, without reference to the labor substance. This means that he had determined to follow definitely one of two different paths which in his first article he had discerned within the first chapter of Capital 1 : the path from the value form toward money, as opposed to one from simple commodity production toward money. As a result, in the transformation of money to capital Uno came to develop this transformation without reference to the value substance ,i.e. from money to merchant capital M-C-M' and money lending capital M�cM'. This is different from Marx's demonstration in Capital 1. Marx transforms money into industrial capital M-C�cC'-M' based on the value substance. Money can transform into capital, according to Marx, only when the possessor of money is lucky enough to find on the market " a commodity whose actual consumption is itself an objectification of labor, hence a creation of value" (1976, 270). Those former two capitals did exist in history, when commodities and money developed. In theory they can generate from forms of commodity and money apart from the labor substance. Actually they did exist in history prior to the emergence of the industrial capital or capitalism.
As against those two capitals, industrial capital comes into existence based on labor substance which is for the first time in history established by the conversion of labor power into a commodity. Only this can establish a society of commodity production, i.e., capitalism. Uno claims that the determination of value by socially necessary labor, or the law of value, that Marx exerted utmost efforts to demonstrate in Capital 1, can be established and proved for the first time only later in the text, in capitalist production consisting of a labor-process and a value-augmentation process of capital, introduced by buying labor power together with various kinds of means of production .
Based on his conception of the law of value, the logic of capitalism which reveals itself in a purely capitalist society, should be constituted by 3 dimensions; the first develops the basic circulation forms in which law of value should operate later in the production of capital ( they can and should be demonstrated without reference to the value substance), the second demonstrates the operation of the law of value in capitalist production with circulation forms, based on the value substance or socially necessary labor , the third develops the actual forms by which the law of value can be realized in capitalism. Uno referred to these 3 dimensions as respectively "The Doctrine of circulation", "The Doctrine of production", and "The Doctrine of distribution".
For Uno, and for Marx as well, the law of value is an inner law which can never be directly materialized in capitalism, but rather is indirectly realized through transformed forms, as is shown in the law of equalization of profits and prices of production which are respectively converted forms of the law of value and values. For Uno, although the law of value, hence the social division of labor as the substantive basis of the law as well, is realized through the competition between capitals which eventuates the equalization of profits, the law of equalization of profits is in itself not the law of value. Consequently, the law of value belongs to the second doctrine , the Doctrine of production, and the law of the equalization of profits and prices of production belong to the third doctrine. The first doctrine corresponds roughly to the chapters of the commodity, money, and transformation of money into capital of Capital 1; the second doctrine to Capital 1 except parts above mentioned and Capital 2 , in other words the production process of capital and circulation process of capital; and the third doctrine to Capital 3.
While Principles is full of improvements Uno invented to solve controversial issues in Capital, I would like, however, to pick up only a few points here. As I explained earlier, Uno 's chapter on the commodity consists of 3 sections ; the first is the two factors of the commodity, value and use-value, the second the value form or exchange value, the third the money-form or price. Noteworthy is that the money form is no more positioned as a mere extension of form D from the general value-form C, as is the case with Marx's value-form, rather it is a form qualitatively distinct form C. And this triad organization of the chapter shows clearly that the two factors of value and use value within the commodity are bound to appear as price and use value in reality.
Uno's measurement of value in the chapter on money is quite different from Marx's. Capital states, " the first main function of gold is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values"(1976, 188 ), and " in its function as measurement of value, money therefore serves only in an imaginary or ideal capacity" ( 1976, 190 ). Uno maintains that the first function of money is to actuate the exchange proposed by commodity owners in a price which is the value expression in the money form. Therefore money measures values of commodities when it actually realizes an offered price. The value expression by commodities owners is imaginary, but the measurement of value by money is not so. In the value expression money plays a role of a mirror to commodities, itself doing nothing at all, hence the money-form belongs to the chapter on the commodity. As against this, in the measurement of value money must take an action of buying commodities, and thus realizing proposed prices.
Furthermore, Uno argues that one chance of buying on the part of the money owner ( or selling on the part of commodity owner ) is not enough to measure the values of commodities. It is only through the repetition of buying(or selling), in other words the fluctuation of prices that the values of commodities are sufficiently and concretely measured. Neither any human being nor any institution can measure values but only the fluctuation of prices which shows values by automatically converging on certain center prices.
Uno used to say that no economists including Marx, not to mention classical economists and contemporary non-Marxist economists, had ever adequately distinguished the expression of value from the measurement of value; the former is an imaginary exchange ,the latter is a realized one. This insight into the distinction comes from his theory of the value form, that the linen owner shows up offering an exchange for a coat, but the coat owner does not show up yet. He was so confident of this achievement that he talked jokingly of his discovery of the measurement of value distinct from the expression of value as deserving well of the Nobel Prize.
Rejecting the substance of value in the first chapter on the commodity, Uno instead demonstrated in the chapter on the value-creating and augmentation process of capital the law of value based on the determination of value by socially necessary labor. Unlike Marx's demonstration in the opening chapter, Uno's are elaborated on the basis of the production of capital resulting from the conversion of labor power into a commodity. Whereas commodity production by small producers had never turned all products into commodities nor necessarily made them exchange at prices proportional to the labor expended on their production, capitalist commodity production based on wage labor effected for the first time all products exchanged at such prices. To wage laborers buying back the products of livelihood with their wage, which they produced under capital's control in the factory, there is no room for an unequal exchange since it involves their survival. Uno maintains further that exchange of livelihood at prices identical with value necessitates means of production to be exchanged between capitals at prices equal to values, and furthermore surplus products to be exchanged at values.
Of course Uno is fully aware that all products of capitalist production are in reality sold at prices of production divergent from prices identical to values. Those production prices, developed later in the theory of profit in the Doctrine of distribution, are introduced, and therefore understood, by the presupposition of exchange at values( the law of value) on the level of what Uno calls the Doctrine of production which consists of the production, circulation and reproduction of capital. Just as the law of value is an inner law underlying capitalism for Marx as is shown in the volume 1 and 2 of Capital, so also for Uno it is a law by no means directly appearing in the outward phenomenon under capitalism despite its operation as an underlying deep structure, as is shown in the Doctrine of production.

5
Principles caused, and is still causing, a big controversy in Japan. Naturally, orthodox Marxist economists who do not allow any revision to Capital made a concerted attack on the work, inaugurating an anti-Uno camp among Japanese Marxist economists. Another aftermath is the emergence of young scholars supporting Uno's method at the University of Tokyo where Uno was teaching. They learnt from Uno that Capital was not yet completed with some crucial failures in method. For them Uno's Principles as well is no more something like the Bible without any allowance for correction than Capital. Based on Uno's theory of circulation-forms, they vigorously began to publish new research criticizing not only Capital but also the Principles.
They all shared the same view in denying value substance demonstrated in the chapter on the commodity compiled by Marx, and in highly appreciating the development of the commodity, money and capital without reference to value substance demonstrated by Uno. They called it the theory of circulation-forms. As a aftermath of this emphasis an interpretation was proposed that the development of forms from the commodity through money to capital reflects the historical development of the world market as it was creating world capitalism in the 17th and the 18th century, and that the third chapter on the interest of capital in the Doctrine of distribution, reflects the historical development from industrial capital to finance capital. They went on further to criticize Uno's presupposition of a purely capitalist society for being an idealistic theory like Hegel's Logic , claming that the principles of political economy should be an inward copy of the historical development of world capitalism, and stage theory a copy of capitalist development on a world scale, and that contemporary or historical analysis should be an inquiry into capitalist development in individual countries. The leading proponent of this approach Hiroshi Iwata went so far to say that capitalism exists as only one global capitalism retaining each capitalist country as merely its part. Iwata's approach came to be called the school of world capitalism( Iwata , 1964)‡D.
There arose a severe criticism against this approach from within the Uno school, upholding the presupposition of a purely capitalist society as the theoretical basis of principles of political economy. They blamed Iwata's assertion of circulation-forms for being a circulation-oriented conception of historical formation of capitalism, which neglected a historical significance of the conversion of labor power into a commodity, i.e. the primitive accumulation of capital taken place with extra-economic factors; and they emphasized that capitalism in history did exist in individual countries with each state its own authority . Since this controversy in 1970s the Uno school has been split into two groups, the school of pure capitalism and of world capitalism. After a decade of heated debate over a purely capitalist society, the discussion between them on the theory of capitalism has almost ceased without finding a solution, since most scholars of world capitalism school shifted their concern to stage theory and the historical analysis of capitalism.
After this controversy most Unoists concerned with restructuring Capital restarted theoretical study within the framework of a purely capitalist society, stimulated by Uno's method. Their energetic critical assessment of Capital and Uno's Principles extended over all fields of the principles of political economy such as the value form, the measurement of value, the transformation of money into capital, the labor process, the value creation process, the turnover of capital, the scheme of capital reproduction, the transformation of values into prices of production, market value, commercial capital, ground rent, the credit and banking system, crises and business cycles, interest-bearing capital, and so on. However their discussion centered on Uno's proof of the law of value in the value-formation and augmentation process in the Doctrine of production. Pivoting around this proof there arose several variations amongst the Uno school.
The first and still influential response to Uno's conception and proof of law of value is that the law of value is for the first time established and therefore proved in the context of prices of production; hence the proof at the level of the Doctrine of production is inappropriate or not viable. Some say that Uno, still under a strong influence of Marx's Capital, holds the exchange between equivalent commodities based on socially necessary labor within the Doctrine of production, despite its expulsion from the chapter on the commodity. Some argue that since all capitalist products are bought or sold at prices of production, supposition of prices proportional to the amount of labor is totally false just like the figment of "an early state of society" in the classical school. The others argue that prices of production are the prices expressing values determined by socially necessary labor, therefore there is no need for supposition of prices proportional to the amount of labor.
Some went so far as to say that since prices converge on prices of production under capitalism, the very prices of production are values in actuality; the law of value is a law directly regulating the prices of production, in other words it means a relation in which the labor and production process regulates directly the movement of capital‚l�|‚b�|‚l�fin prices of production, hence it has nothing to do with buying or selling at prices equivalent to values. The equating of supply by capital to social demand is facilitated by the equalization of the profit rate effected by the competition between capitals. The social division of labor presupposed by Uno in the labor and production process can in fact be established only in the law of equal profit and at prices of production, so the proof of the law of value, the scheme of reproduction as well, should be demonstrated in the chapter on the profit.
Some assert that the role of the Doctrine of production is to lay bare only the ground on which the law of value operates, not the law itself yet, and that the law of value is proved primarily in the theory of prices of production, and fully in the theory of business cycles since conversion on center prices through fluctuation of prices can be thoroughly attained only through business cycles. In other words with the completion of the principles the law of value is completed, hence fully proved.
As a corollary of this assertion, some assert that equivalent exchange or prices proportional to the amount of embodied labor is valid only in the value-formation process where wage laborers work up to a time span of necessary labor, but that as far as the time for surplus labor is concerned an equivalent exchange is no longer valid, rather a loose exchange apart from a precise exchange between equivalents arises. Some of them propose a mathematical solution for the relationship between values and prices of production by introducing the Bortkiewicz formula, which uses 3 simultaneous equations with 4 unknowns in terms of value on the assumption that embodied labor is value‡E. Some do not want to use it, but they all claim that the law of value can be proved in the theory of profit where the law of equal profit prevails and prices of production, in which supply and demand meet perfectly, establish themselves. This trend of interpretation became more popular especially among young Unoists. With their research into the principles diminishing recently, they are diversifying into such fields as historical analysis of contemporary capitalism, socio-economics, ecology, feminism, information economics, and so on.
If this diversification were based on a solid confirmation of the principles of political economy, it would be congratulatory and promising. Otherwise in fact, the diversification can involve a disintegration of Uno theory. The Uno school is now at stake. There are many reasons for this crisis. I think the primary reason is that they are still unable to establish a unified conception of the principles of capitalism owing to their failure in comprehension of the law of value, for the law constitutes the core of the principles.

6
To conclude this article I wish to present my own view in briefly commenting on those views mentioned above. I agree with Uno's method which aims to prove the law of value in the Doctrine of Production or the production process of capital. Uno used to stress that the law of equal profit is a developed form in which the law of value actuates itself under capitalism, and not the law of value itself, just as prices of production are a transformed form of values and not values themselves. However, I don't think that Uno has succeeded in the proof. One can check it in the Principles translated by Sekine . As far as the proof of the law of value in the value-creating process is concerned, Uno's explanation is basically not different from that in the old Principles.
Uno's proof of the law is incomplete yet, or sometimes inappropriate, because the value-form and the measurement of value, Uno's theoretical innovations I explained earlier, do not fully function in his proof yet as the forms in which the law operates. For him to prove the law of value means to prove an equal exchange of commodities on the basis of equal social labor necessary to produce them, or to prove buying or selling of commodities at prices proportional to the amount of social labor expended for their production. Because of this conception of the law of value most Unoists, stressing the reality of exchange at prices of production, have come to deny an exchange at prices proportional to values determined by social labor time in the Doctrine of production. According to their view, the presupposition of prices proportional to values by Marx and Uno in the production process of capital is as totally false as in the " early state of society" in the classical school. As the reason for their objection to Uno, some pointed out the fact that neither capitalists nor workers know the labor time expended on their products on the basis of which they can evaluate those products in terms of value or labor time.
What Uno clarified in his Principles is that the first doctrine of circulation-forms demonstrates forms in which law of value operates, the second doctrine of production lays bare the operation of the law itself, and the third doctrine of distribution develops real forms in which the law of value actuates and establishes itself under capitalism. I deduce from this achievement of Uno's that the operation of the law of value in the second doctrine should be exposed with the value form, namely in the value expression in price, and with the measurement of value by money through the fluctuation of prices. Marx in volumes 1 and 2 of Capital, and Uno in the second doctrine, are justified in the presupposition of selling and buying products at prices proportional to values, yet not justified in not showing that selling and buying at values takes place with values of products expressed subjectively in a price by commodity owners prior to the exchange, and with those products repeatedly bought by money owners through the fluctuation of prices. Indeed equal exchange can be established when exchange is based on socially necessary labor, but even then an equal exchange , rather correctly the purchase and sale of products at values, is realized only through the constant fluctuation of prices gravitating on the price identical with a value.
The reason why the fluctuation of price converges on the price identical with a value(commonly this price is called value, precisely it is a price, not a value itself), is that free movements of capitals among sectors of production eventuates blindly an appropriate allocation of social labors into each sector of production, a result attained by the meeting of supply with demand through the fluctuation of prices. In reality the fluctuation of the price converges on prices of production, not on the price identical with a value, as is demonstrated in the chapter on the profit. However, this fact by no means undermines the theory that the fluctuation of price gravitates towards value, but, on the contrary, this fact can be theoretically explained only on the premise of this theory. This is the ground on which Uno insisted on the law of value in the Doctrine of production, and Marx developed Capital 1 and 2 on the premise of an equal exchange based on socially necessary labor time.
In order to understand this logic we must distinguish between two different movements within the fluctuation of the price gravitating on the price of production or the law of an equalized profit; the movement of the price gravitating on value, namely the law of value, and the movement of capitals between different sectors in search for a maximum profit or the competition of capitals. The phenomenon of the price converging on the production price is born out of the compound of these movements. In order to explain this appearance of the price in reality we must first abstract from the law of value out of this compounded movement. This is the Doctrine of production, and then we develop the competition of capitals in quest of a maximum profit at the opening of the Doctrine of distribution.
This inevitably involves such an alteration in allocation of labor and in the relation between demand and supply as to effectuate total surplus values into an average profit proportional to the amount of each capital. In my view this is the transformation problem of values into prices of production. The reason why I disagree with mathematical solutions to it is that they are all unable to grasp this meaning of transformation. The divergence of prices of production from values can not be expressed in mathematical figures as x,y,z., as is shown in the Bortkiewicz formula. The difficulties in solving the transformation problem lies in the point that we cannot develop the prices of production on the same basis of social allocation of total labor as when the law of value has been developed in the Doctrine of production. In this context Marx's solution by canceling plus deviations and minus deviations, based on the two postulates that total value equal total price of production and total surplus value equals total profits, comes into question. In the same way, Uno's verification following Marx's mathematical illustration for the transformation is questionable.
For Ricardo who for the first time had faced, and struggled all his life with, this problem, this transformation was bound to imply a negation of his original claim for the labor theory of value, although he insisted on its validity as a rule admitting some trivial exceptions in special cases. As far as this point is concerned, Malthus's assertion that profit proportional to the amount of capital is a general rule, and profit proportional to the amount of labor an exception, is true. The cause making Ricardo fall into this dilemma is his lack of a correct conception of law of value. For him the law of value is nothing but a law regulating a given exchange ratio between commodity and money, so the appearance of prices disproportional to labor expended on production implies negation or amendment of the law.
In order to grasp correctly the concept of the law of value, Marx's metaphor of the law of gravitation is ingenious and useful in a limited sense. An object gravitating toward the ground falls within some distance from a falling line, when a side wind blows the falling object. To explain an actual falling point we must take into account the direction and strength of the wind on the basis of the law of gravitation. That a falling point is divergent from one theoretically deduced from the law of gravitation is not contradictory with the law. Under capitalism the law of value corresponds to the law of gravitation, the side wind to the competition between capitals in quest of a maximum profit. The fact that the fluctuation of prices in reality gravitates toward prices of production divergent from prices equivalent to values by no means implies negation or amendment of the law of value, rather it should be explained on the basis of the law, taking into account the competition among capitals.
However it should be taken note that this analogy has limitations, since the law of value is a social law confined to a specific society, as opposed to the law of gravitation, a natural law which is universal anytime in any society. We can observe the law of gravitation as such in a situation of no wind in an experiment, whereas we cannot see the law of value directly under capitalism. The latter can be grasped in theory by abstracting it from the law of equalization of profit rate, just as value determined by socially necessary labor can be grasped in the Doctrine of production by abstracting it from prices of production in the theory of the profit.
Furthermore, this analogy is misleading in giving the impression that prices of production exist simultaneously with values as embodied labor in the Doctrine of distribution. Once values have been transformed into prices of production as a consequence of the competition between capitals, values are hidden behind the prices of production. In the Doctrine of distribution we can no longer grasp values directly. This is the reason why the law of value should be exposed and proved only in the Doctrine of production, i.e., on a level distinct from the third level. In case of a falling object the law of gravitation and the wind work simultaneously on the same level, so we can grasp the divergence in mathematical terms. The divergence between values and prices of production is totally different from that. Although the law of value operates under prices of production, we cannot grasp value and price of production simultaneously in mathematical terms. This comes from the fact the law of value is a social law specific to a specific society in history. In order to analyze this specific law we need a logic specific to capitalism, in other words a specific method of political economy.
In this context the mathematical solution by Marx and Uno of the transformation problem by redistributing aggregated total surplus values over capitals as an average profit is quite misleading. In this solution the implication of the operation of the law under prices of production is understood in that both propositions of total surplus values equal to total profits and of total values equal to total prices of production hold true, in other words, in that divergences of prices of production from values are altogether canceled out society wide. Whereas the former proposition has some important meaning since competition between capitals generates the distribution of equal surplus over equal amounts of capital, the latter proposition is an willful assumption having no meaning at all. Whoever wishes to develop Marx's method, being content with Marx's solution, will fail to fully understand the concept of the law of value. The law of value is commonly understood as the same thing as the labor theory of value, yet those two are not like as two peas. The former can contain the latter, but the latter cannot contain the former as is the case with Ricardo, who held the latter, but not the former in a correct sense.
As is well known, it is Marx who first invented and used the term " law of value" to analyze the essence of the capitalist mode of production, or capitalism. He formed this conception by criticizing the labor theory of value in the Classical school, especially Ricardo. He had never inherited nor borrowed the labor theory of value from Ricardo. Therefore it is preposterous to call Marx a pupil of Ricardo, as he is often dubbed in the West. The cause of this naming comes from the common perception that the law of value is nothing but the labor theory of value, which has prevailed widely even among Marxist economists. Typically in the transformation problem, the law of value has been reduced to the assumption that value is embodied labor be a value, which can be verified only in a mathematical equation of value with price of production in terms of embodied labor time. Since this simplified concept of the law of value has been established, the transformation problem has become a question anyone, even non-Marxist economists, can challenge if he is proficient in mathematics without a full knowledge of political economy.
As I elaborated earlier, the law of value can operate only through the fluctuation of price, so it cannot be understood without an accurate knowledge of the value form and the measurement of value. Naturally, simply a full knowledge of them is not enough for us to understand the law of value. We need, as the next step, an accurate knowledge of the labor process‡F. However, if one is short of an accurate understanding of the value form and the measure of value, one is taking a wrong way from the first step, and no longer able to reach a correct understanding of the law of value. Uno's theory of the value form paved the way leading to the goal .


Notes
‡@ The idea that in the money form the money commodity gold has gained a new use value of a "general use value" in place of a particular use value which every commodity has, cannot solve this problem. In my view the point is that commodity owners no longer see gold as the object of their desires, in other words, they desire money gold not as use value, but as so to speak value. This is the abstraction of use value in the money form. A general use value or use value in general is a contradiction in terms. It should be noted that Marx had used this term in The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859, but later in the money form of Capital 1 Marx ceased to use this word. Presumably it will be the consequence of the development of the value form in Capital 1.
‡A The fact that capitalist production never prevailed over all of production in history, but only its majority, even during the liberal stage of English capitalism by no means contradicts the presupposition of a purely capitalist society where capitalist production prevails over the totality of production. The peculiar relation between capitalist and small production can be analyzed at the levels of stage theory and historical studies, guided by the theory or the principles of political economy. About this issue, see Albritton's explanation(1991,12-22) . He refers to a purely capitalist society as " a totally reified society".
‡B In this context Uno's theory of value is in opposition to Rubin's, which tends to interpret the commodity of Capital 1 from the point of view of the theory of simple commodity production despite arguing that a society of small commodity producers is an imaginary one, non-existent in history. For Rubin the form of value means the expression of reified labor as value, whereas for Uno it is the expression of value itself, not of labor. Uno left no reference to Rubin. It is not certain whether Uno had read, or known about, Rubin. Anyway the comparison and discussion between both theories of value is an exciting issue for political economists in the world. On some other occasion I wish to publish an close examination of Rubin's theory of value.
‡C This work is different from the one which was published in English by Harvester Press in 1980. This work, sometimes called the "Old Principles", was originally published in two volumes in 1950, 1952, and was three times larger than the later work , the so called "New Principles" , which was published in 1964 and later translated by Sekine. In my view this later work is a concise digest of the "Old Principles, supposedly designed as a text book for university students. Reportedly Uno had been preparing for the publication of a revised version of the "Old Principles". This one is his life work, never replaceable by the "New Principles". Without reading the work , it will be extremely difficult to fully understand Uno's theory of value, or of capitalism.
‡D It may be interesting to compare Iwata with Wallerstein in the U. S. who maintains the "world system" of capitalism. The difference between them is that Iwata claims a theory of world capitalism, whereas Wallerstein denies a theory of the world system of capitalism(Wallerstein, 1991). Therefore as far as stage theory and historical studies are concerned, both will be able to share not a few views of capitalist development.
However what comes into question with the world system approach is that without the knowledge of such a theory of capitalism as we call the principles of political economy, it will soon stray off into the wood of infinite historical facts. The fact that historical studies have gone wrong when influenced by theories of capitalism does not mean that they can succeed when they are totally free fr