BİR ÖZGÜRLEŞME SORUNSALI OLARAK POLİTİK İKTİSADIN ELEŞTİRİSİ

Politik iktisadın kategorilerinin gerçekliğinin nerede aranması gerektiği sorusu, kavramsal bir analizi gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu kavramsal analiz yapılmadığında, bu kategoriler, "kendinde şeyler" olarak ele alınmakta, bu kategorileri var eden toplumsal süreçler anlaşılamamaktadır. Bu tür bir yaklaşımın doğrudan sonuçlarından biri, politik iktisadın kategorilerinin ebedileştirilmesi, bunları var eden tarihsel koşulların özgüllüğünün göz ardı edilmesidir. Böylelikle, politik iktisadın konusunu oluşturan üretim ilişkileri, tek toplumsal biçim olarak görülmektedir. Marx'ın politik iktisadın eleştirisi, bu kategorilere ilişkin kavramsal bir analiz temelinde, bunların tarihsel niteliklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak daha geniş bir çerçevede Marx, konuyu, öz-biçim diyalektiği içinde ele almakta, bu kategorileri ortaya çıkaran üretim ilişkilerini analiz etmektedir. Böylelikle, politik iktisadın kategorilerinin neyin biçimi olduğu sorusunu merkeze alarak, bu biçimin ifade ettiği özü ortaya çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir. Marx'a göre, toplumsal kategoriler, kendinde şeyler değildir ve belirli bir öznelliği, bu öznelliği ortaya çıkaran toplumsal ilişkileri varsayar. Mevcudiyetleri bu öznellikle bağlantılı olarak tanımlı olan kategorilerin toplumsal süreçlerle bağıntısının kurulması, bu öznelliklerce belirlenmiş çerçevenin dışına çıkılması demektir. Böylelikle bu eleştirel yaklaşım, özneyi kendi tarihselliğinin ötesine taşınmasının aracı olmaktadır

Critique of Political Economy as a Problematic of Emancipation

The question where should the reality of the categories of political economy be looked for requires a conceptual analysis. One of the immediate results of such an analysis is universalization of the categories of political economy and dismissing the specificity of the historical conditions that create them. Thus, the production relations that constitute the subject of political economy are taken to be the sole social form. The critique by Marx of political economy delineates the historical character of these categories on the basis of a conceptual analysis. However, Marx, on a broader context, handles the issue within the dialectics of essenceform relationship and analyses the production relations that give rise to these categories. Thus, he aims to determine the essence that these forms express by giving an answer to the question whose forms these categories are. To Marx, social categories are not things in themselves and presuppose a certain subjectivity, with the production relations that give rise to such a subjectivity. Linking these categories, whose existence is defined in terms of their relation to this subjectivity, with social processes allows one to free her/himself from the circumstances determined by these subjectivities. This critical approach, thus, opens the way for surpassing the historically determined limits of such subjectivities

PDF

___

Althusser, Louis (1977), “From Capital to Marx’s Philosophy”, Althusser, Louis ve Etienne Balibar (Der.), Reading Capital (Londra: New Left Books) (Çev. Ben Brewster): 11-69.
Arthur, Chris J. (1979), “Dialectic of the Value-Form”, Elson, Diana (Der.), Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism (Londra: CSE Books): 67-81.
Arthur, Chris J. (1986), Dialectics of Labour: Marx and His Relation to Hegel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Arthur, Chris J. (2004), The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital (Leiden: Brill).
Backhaus, Hans-Georg (1992), “Between Philosophy and Science: Marxian Social Economy as Critical Theory”, Bonefeld, Werner, Richard Gunn ve Kosmas Psychopedis (Der.), Open Marxism: Volume I: Dialectics and History (Londra: Pluto Press): 54-92.
Backhaus, Hans-Georg (1980), “On the Dialectics of Value-Form”, Thesis Eleven, 1: 99-120.
Backhaus, Hans-Georg (2005), “Some Aspects of Marx’s Concept of Critique in the Context of his Economic-Philosophical Theory”, Bonefeld, Werner ve Komsak Psychopedis (Der.), Human Dignity: Social Autonomy and the Critique of Capitalism (Aldershot: Ashgate): 13- 39.
Campbell, Martha (1993), “Marx’s Concept of Economic Relations and the Method of Capital” Moseley, Fred (Der.), Marx’s Method in Capital: A Reexamination (New Jersey: Humanities Press): 135-155.
Elson, Diane (1979), “The Value Theory of Labour”, Elson, Diana (Der.), Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism (Londra: CSE Books): 115-180.
Fine, Ben ve Alfredo Saad-Filho (2004), Marx’s Capital (Londra: Pluto Press).
Gould, Carol (1978), Marx’s Social Ontology (New York: MIT Press).
Marx, Karl (1970), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York: International Publishers) (Çev. S. W. Ryazanskaya).
Marx, Karl, (1973), Grundrisse (Middlesex: Penguin Books) (Çev. Martin Nicolaus).
Marx, Karl (1976), Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 (Harmondsworth: Penguin) (Çev. Ben Fowkes).
Marx, Karl (1979), Grundrisse (İstanbul: Birikim Yayınları) (Çev. Sevan Nişanyan).
Marx, Karl, (1988), Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (New York: Promotheus Books) (Çev. Martin Milligan).
Marx, Karl (1994), “The Value-Form”, Mohun, Simon (Der.), Debates in Value Theory (New York: St. Martin Press): 9-34.
Marx, Karl (2011), Kapital: Ekonomi Politiğin Eleştirisi, Cilt I (İstanbul: Yordam Kitap) (Çev. Mehmet Selik-Nail Satlıgan).
Milios, John, Dimitri Dimoulis ve George Economakis (2002), Karl Marx and the Classics: An Essay on Value, Crises and the Capitalist Mode of Production (Hampshire: Ashgate).
Milios, John (2002), “Theory of Value and Money: In Defence of the Endogeneity of Money”, Sixth International Conference in Economics Economic Research Center, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Eylül 2002.
Moseley, Fred (Der.) (1993), Marx’s Method in Capital: A Reexamination (New Jersey: Humanities Press).
Murray, Patrick (1988), “Karl Marx as a Historical Materialist Historian of Political Economy”, History of Political Economy, 1: 95-105.
Murray, Patrick (1993), “The Necessity of Money: How Hegel Helped Marx Surpass Ricardo’s Theory of Value”, Moseley, Fred (Der.), Marx’s Method in Capital: A Reexamination, (New Jersey: Humanities Press): 37-62.
Murray, Patrick (2005), “Money as Displaced Social Form: Why Value cannot be Independent of Price”, Moseley, Fred (Der.), Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan): 50-64.
Vedat Ulvi Aslan  Bir Özgürleşme Sorunsalı Olarak Politik İktisadın Eleştirisi  847 Ollman, Bertell (1976), Alienation: Marx’s Concept of Man in Capitalist Society (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press).
Pilling, Geoffrey (1980), Marx’s “Capital”: Philosophy and Political Economy (Londra: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Rubin, Isaac I. (1972), Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value (Detroit: Black and Red).
Rubin, Isaac I. (1994), “Abstract Labour and Value in Marx’s System”, Mohun, Simon (Der.), Debates in Value Theory (New York: St. Martin Press): 35-72.
Smith, Adam (1981), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics).