Makoto Itoh  1:03
I began to read Marx’s Capital in what you say the first year of university.

Will Brehm  1:10
Freshman.

Makoto Itoh  1:10
Freshman. One of my classroom friends invited me to join the reading group in university class. It was a good experience to be reading Marx.

Will Brehm  1:25
Was reading Marx and learning about Marxist economics common as a student when you were in university?

Makoto Itoh  1:33
I probably would be happy to have such friends among my classroom. But from my middle school age, my close friend, very good friend, was a child of MP-member of Communist Party parliament member. He was a good historian, and that eldest son was my close friend and he always said that, “you are a pitiable family child, you can’t understand this book. Read Trotsky but you can’t understand that”. I felt inferiority complex due to my pitiable dual family.

Will Brehm 2:30
So, you grew up in a more upper-class?

Makoto Itoh  2:32
Middle class.

Will Brehm  2:33
Middle class. Petit bourgeois. And that, your friend was saying, prevented you from understanding Marx. So, did you see that as, like, a challenge too?

Makoto Itoh  2:46
So, I believe his world and Marxism is remote from me. And just as Karl Kautsky, he wrote a preface in his famous book, “Agricultural Problem” (On the Agrarian Question), saying that I became Marxist by resisting it. Just like that, I felt Marxism is a different world and I can’t discuss on Marx due to my origin. So, it was a sort of liberation when I began to read Marx’s Das Kapital and he says clearly that Marxist political economy, Das Kapital, is a book of social science different from ideology and it should be understood from the historical facts and logic only. So, even Marxist writing in Kapital if we find some difficult place or inconsistency in his book, we may try to revise it to a correct way or more consistent ways it is permitted as a social science. Whereas ideology, socialism, it’s different. Ideology may be understood from the view of working class and political party for working class can discuss certain ways of political decisions, tactics, strategies for workers, and it cannot be shared by all the social members in certain cases. But as for social science, presented in Marx’s Kapital could be read as a scientific work understood by everyone who wish to understand what is capitalism, what capitalist economy is, what is the characteristics of historical character of that social system? Anyone can understand social science. So, Uno’s methodology is said to have three major points that are very original in the world of Marxism. One is sharp distinction between ideology and scientific work in Marx should be distinguished and without correct understanding of social science in Marx, socialism cannot be grounded upon social science. Socialism as a specific ideology, which can have logical grounds to assert upon the basis of social science. In that sense, it can be called as a scientific ideology but scientific is not equal to science. This is Uno’s first characteristic.

And the second characteristic is that Marx’s capital is a basic principle of political economy or basic principle of capitalist economy and it cannot cover the whole historical development of capitalist world history from the past to the present. It should be studied in another dimension of research’s stages theory of capitalist development. And Japanese capitalism, complete individually capitalist country like Japan, in particular, it should be studied at the third level of more concrete analytical study. So, three levels of research should be systematically distinct. So, this is a very, very important contribution of Uno’s reading of Marx’s Kapital. Usually Marx’s Kapital was regarded as 19th century competitive model of capitalism. It turned into monopolistic capital, according to historical change. In that case, Marx’s capital is old history and it cannot have any relevancy to the present monopolistic capitalism and Uno believed it is not in such a way. Principle is principle and it can be a frame of reference of current capitalism too. It is very, very interesting.

Will Brehm  8:07
Right? So, the idea of saying, you can have a study of the principles and the internal logics of capitalism, but then you can also do these concrete analyses of capitalism, development, in place and in time. So, how is Japanese capitalism looking today compared to in the 1950s, or 60s or 70s or in the 17th century? So, you have to distinguish which one. And then there’s another distinction between political ideology and economic science in a sense.

Makoto Itoh  8:58
That’s right.

Will Brehm  8:58
So, one of the issues from a Western perspective is that a lot of the Western writers seem to need to -it’s very difficult to see and understand Marx without connecting capital and say, the Communist Manifesto. The political and the economic are deeply intertwined in a lot of the thinking. So, it’s a very interesting thought that Uno was proposing that you are-

Makoto Itoh  9:28
Uno believed that Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, already before 30 years old, and it criticizes capitalism from the view of socialist ideology, historical materialism. Already, Marx, Engels had their mind but after that, for the rest of Marx’s life, was devoted to complete Marx’s Kapital. And it took such a long time to write down whole volumes, three times, at least before publishing the first volume. The whole manuscript three times. And still, he was uncertain that he can finish up all the three volumes. And just the first volume was finished, and the second and third volumes were edited by Engels. So, its true life work in contrast to my book, it’s so light.

Will Brehm  10:51
Your new book, A Guide to Capitalist Economy.

Makoto Itoh  10:55
I’m ashamed of that, alright Why Marx did such a hard working throughout his almost latter half of life, completely devoted to complete. He was not satisfied by just applying historical material, it’s more socialist ideology to socialist and communist. He intended to correct Smith and Ricardo’s type of classical economy. A historical character of capitalism as a systemic, scientific recognition. It is a very interesting project to read. And I think Marx’s Kapital is a real masterpiece and in a sense, genius works. And Uno also intended to read and read Marx’s Kapital in his way. And Uno’s third characteristic is very interesting, the reading to complete whole Marx’s three volumes into very essential, under one tenth small books. You know what is Japanese culture and tradition, everything is too compact. Sony, Toyota.

Will Brehm  12:37
My apartment.

Makoto Itoh  12:37
Everything is condensed into a beautiful small world containing the great world. Do you know Hakoniwa or a, sort of, small garden that is artificially made and contains bonsai? Copies work, great nature into a small garden. Japanese gardens contain such a tradition to make great, big nature into small, beautiful, essential.

Will Brehm  13:19
And that’s what Uno did with Marx, three volumes of Kapital?

Makoto Itoh  13:24
He condensed it to one tenth. Beautiful work!

Will Brehm  13:25
This may sound like a stupid question. Do you think the project that Marx was working on, and that Uno was working on, and that you continue to work on, is that project pretty much done? Or is there many more opportunities for people to enter the world of Marxist economics and develop it further?

Makoto Itoh  13:53
Sure. There are a lot of things to be continuously done. In Marx’s Kapital, there remained interesting theoretical problems. Still remain. As we discussed the complex work, how to think of complex skilled work, labor power, and how to think of cost of educational and training costs for complex labor. That relationship is an interesting problem from the view of economic democracy, as I suggested. This sort of thing still remains to be solved for the future. And then how to think of Marx’s capital for the future society. It doesn’t explain very much about socialism explicitly, and socialism with the Soviet is said to be based upon Karl Marx, apparently. Is it based upon Communist Manifesto? Yes, probably. But is it based upon Marx’s Kapital? It’s dubious. In what sense? In what manner? It is not clear enough. What of money for example? Lefebvre would define by starting, it is their money, but I can’t think it’s a real market money. Money without a Soviet type of planned economy cannot function fully, at least, for market money. It’s clear. But what is it then? Quasi-money or special, no money? That sort of question remained, and no one clearly answered. What built at the time and what shall we think about the future, from that point of view, as we discuss the certain kind of local currencies appearing today and certain digital money? Money is, in a sense, multiplied in the world. What sort of money or functions of money could be for the future in such kind of things from the beginning of commodity -money, capital, labor, division of labor, corporations? all the categories of Marx’s capital contained a certain suggestion or frame of reference for the future? It is my will tendency to rethink. It’s interesting, probably, for many people to consider that a lot of work can be deduced from that.

Will Brehm  17:18
Well, I hope you inspire a whole future generation of Marxist scholars because there seems to be a lot of work that still can be done and needs to be done. Yeah. So, Makoto Itoh, thank you so much for joining FreshEd.

Makoto Itoh  17:31
It’s my pleasure.

Will Brehm  17:32
It really was my pleasure. I really enjoyed talking today.

Makoto Itoh  17:34
Well, thank you very much.

Coming soon

Coming soon