@article{oai:otsuma.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000751,
 author = {松石, 勝彦},
 journal = {大妻女子大学紀要. 社会情報系, 社会情報学研究, Otsuma journal of social information studies},
 month = {},
 note = {P(論文), 経済学の方法は他の社会科学や自然科学の方法と同じである。まず,複雑な現実を分析し,いろいろな諸要素に分解し,これらの諸要素の間の内的関連を探求し,位置づけ(下降分析,研究の方法),次により単純なより抽象的なものからより複雑なより具体的なものへと上昇し,複雑な現実を再生産する(叙述の方法)。このことを『資本論』に即して明らかにしたのが,拙著『資本論の方法』青木書店,1987年である。本書について高橋順三郎氏が5本の論文で詳細且つ執拗に検討され,批判された。この中には経済学の方法の根幹に係わる重要問題や私が意識的にアンチテーゼを出し批判した通説的見解が含まれるので,本稿では氏の批判の批判を試み,同時に積極的解明をも行う。具体的には,第一に,私の上昇法を否定され(本稿注(4)記載の氏の最近稿では不十分だとされ),工業における産業資本の生産部面を中心に経済学の篇別構成を説くべきという氏の積極説では篇別構成は全然説けず,やはり上昇法が不可欠なことを明らかにする。第二に,私の下降分析批判に対しては資本の流通過程や総過程に関する氏の見解に問題があると反論する。第三に,私が弁証法的方法を「発生,存在,発展,死滅」と説いたのは資本主義全体に関してだけであり,商品,貨幣,資本などの範疇は「発生・発展・移行」であり,この点に氏の誤解があると反批判する。第四に,私の冒頭商品=資本主義商品説に対する氏の反論は歴史的な過去の単純商品を含む商品一般説であるが,資本主義的社会の富の要素形態である商品(例えば,店頭の電化製品デジカメ)を分析するのだから,歴史的な単純商品が入り込む余地はなく,最初に全てを説くことは不可能であるから,現実には資本主義的商品だけれども,さしあたり資本主義的商品から「資本主義的」を捨象し,論理的だが実在的な単純商品を抽出し,分析し,順次この「資本主義的」を明らかにするのだと反批判する。, The method of political economy is the same with other social sciences and natural sciences. At first, we analyze a complex realty and dissolve it into various elements to seek the inner relationships between them (descending analysis or the method of scrutiny). Secondly we ascend from more abstract and simpler to more concrete and more complex, and lastly reproduce in our brains the complex realty from which we have started (the method of description). This method I have elucidated along "Capital" in my book titled The Method of "Capital" published by Aoki-Shoten in 1987. Against this book Prof. Takahashi has developed his detailed and enthusiastic criticism in five successive papers. In them are included important problems on the fundamentals of political economy and the repeated popular views against which I had submitted alternatives consciously in my book. In this paper I do criticism of his criticism and at the same time, I try positive development of problems involved. Firstly, I clarify that his positive view in place of my ascending method by emphasizing the production process of industrial capital is not enough to make clear the order and sequences of categories of political economy now in question and consequently the ascending method is inevitable even for his claims. Secondly, I argue that his criticisms of my descending analysis are due to his misunderstandings on the circulating process of capital and the capitalist process as a whole. Thirdly, I criticize his criticism that my view of the dialectical method of 'genesis, existence, development and extinction' is not applicable to the development of 'commodity→money→capital' is his misunderstanding of my limitation the theme only to capitalism. For that arrow (→) development, I had submitted my alternative dialectic method of 'genesis, development and transition' which he ignored. Fourthly, his criticism against my view that the commodities at the start are capitalist commodities is based on his own idea of the commodities at the start being both capitalist commodities and past historical simple commodities. But since commodities at the start are elements of the wealth of the capitalist society, they can not include historical simple commodities. For one thing, a digital camera now on display at a shop is surely a capitalist commodity which never existed in the past. What we do is just to abstract the capitalist nature from the digital camera and to think it as a simple commodity, as we can not analyze the whole thing at once at the same time from the start. But this does not necessarily render the camera to a past historical simple commodity. This abstraction is only a logical treatment, and the digital camera still remains a capitalist commodity.},
 pages = {129--150},
 title = {経済学の方法 : 高橋順三郎氏の拙著『資本論の方法』批判に答える},
 volume = {15},
 year = {2006}
}