Está en la página 1de 19

This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]

On: 11 November 2014, At: 19:07


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Interventions: International Journal of


Postcolonial Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riij20

POSTCOLONIALITY AND THE NATIONAL


QUESTION IN MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
a
Gavin Walker
a
Cornell University , USA
Published online: 23 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Gavin Walker (2011) POSTCOLONIALITY AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN MARXIST
HISTORIOGRAPHY, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 13:1, 120-137, DOI:
10.1080/1369801X.2011.545583

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2011.545583

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
P O S T C O L O N I A L I T Y A N D T H E N AT I O N A L
QUESTION IN MARXIST
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

Elements of the Debate on Japanese Capitalism

Gavin Walker
Cornell University, USA

................
capitalist In examining the relation between Marxist historiography and the theoretical
development trajectories of postcolonial studies, the problem posed in Marxist theory under
the name of the national question remains decisive. This question is always
Japanese emerging around the tensions generated between the logic of capital, the purified
Marxism
circuit-process of capitals self-unfolding, and the local conditions of its
Marxist deployment, typically the modern form of the nation-state. I argue that the
historiography history of the prewar debate on the nature of Japanese capitalism, which was
itself the fundamental locus for the development of Marxist historiography and
nation-state theory in Japan, can be a suggestive source of clues for the explication of this
relation. In examining the theoretical problems that inhere in this historical
postcolonial
studies
moment, I attempt to argue that the national question in Marxist theory can be
forcefully renewed through a parallax movement with the question of the
postcolonial, that is, the irreversibility of the history of colonialism inscribed in
the form of the nation-state. In other words, the national question is not only a
question of the levels and stages of capitalist development in given, apparently
stable areas; it is also the question of how the logic of capital relates to the
historico-epistemological production of the national itself.
................
......................................................................................
interventions Vol. 13(1) 120137 (ISSN 1369-801X print/1469-929X online)
Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2011.545583
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
121

The theoretical and political sequence inaugurated by the work of Marx


remains a central source for the theorizations of postcolonial studies today.
An essential element of Marxs project, what he called the analysis of
the historical presuppositions for the becoming of capital (Marx and Engels
1975, vol. 34 [1994]: 247), consists in the demonstration of the fact that this
becoming is always intertwined and inseparable from the enclosure of
territory, the formation of bounded units inscribed in a hierarchical set
of relations. As is well known, in the final section of the first volume of
Capital, Marx carefully outlines the degree to which, therefore, the emer-
gence of capital, which is never a substantial object but itself a social relation,
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

went hand-in-hand with the emergence of colonies, the slave trade, and the
enclosure of newly discovered territories, examining in particular the
politicaleconomic consequences of policies such as E. G. Wakefields theory
of systematic colonization. Through Marxs reading strategy, therefore, we
can see that the primitive or original accumulation which forms the basic
presupposition on which capitals own self-movement can unfold is also an
expression of the formation of the modern international system of nation-
states in gestation. As we know today, it is furthermore in the form of the
colony that we find the laboratory in which the techniques of violence,
domination and subjugation characteristic of the management of the modern
nation-state were developed and perfected. Numerous and divergent studies
have shown that the centrality of the police-function, the role of systematic
hygiene, and techniques of government to manage, classify and analyse the
population  all characteristic of most contemporary nation-states today 
were previously key elements of colonial rule. Therefore, Marxs analysis of
capitals emergence is simultaneously closely bound up with the general form
of colonial relations of power, and for us today, the continuum between these
two polarities remains in the form of the continuance of the nation-state, in
whose very existence is inscribed the postcolonial as a condition, that is, the
fact of the irreversibility of the history of colonialism, which is irredeemably
located within the form of the nation-state itself. Now, as Gayatri Spivak has
emphasized, capitalism is something like the pharmakon of Marxism (Spivak
1999: 83), because Marxist analysis effects its own self-development in a
complex parallax with the unfolding of capitals own power of abstraction.
We could also reformulate this by beginning from the assertion that, in a
similar form of relation, the colony is the pharmakon of the nation-state.
Let me illustrate this doubled relation further. As Robert Young has
argued, postcolonial theory is not exactly a theory in the strong sense, but
rather a set of conceptual resources (2001: 64) that allow us to conceive
not only of the historical question posed by the colony, but also those forms
of resistance to its domination. Thus, I would like to pose a specific form of
connection between this set of conceptual resources and the history of
Marxist theory itself, as a question not of complementarity, but of mutual
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 122
.........................
imbrication. In other words, in my view, the object of postcolonial studies,
which analyses the contemporary and modern relations of power in terms of
the irreversible historical fact of imperialism, is a theoretical framework
which shares with Marxist theory the analysis of the historical presupposi-
tions for the becoming of the network of organized social forces which
supports the contemporary order. Just as labours expropriation, the
violence of its capture, is erased by plugging up the ontological gap in
capitals smooth circuit-process through the semblance of labour power, so
too, the nation-states postcolonial condition always attempts to erase the
traces and continuities of colonial violence by means of its own refined
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

violence (a violence which was itself perfected in the colony).


But what does this intimate relation of the colony and post-colony to
Marxism allow us to clarify? What processes and operations can we question
as a result? And indeed, how can we utilize this dense overlapping that is
inherent to Marxist theory and the analytical possibilities of postcolonial
studies in order to give ourselves new radical political possibilities today,
new strategies of orientation?
Obviously, if the form of the nation-state itself is closely related to the
postcolonial condition, the question of nationalism becomes one of para-
mount importance. In this respect, Young has briefly touched on a point
which I see as exceptionally critical, one that allows us to think deeply about
the possibilities inherent in new articulations between Marxist theory and
the postcolonial project of analysis. As he argues vis-a`-vis the history of
Marxist anticolonial movements, nationalism was a subsidiary element in
a more politically and theoretically innovative practice, whereby the very
translatability of Marxism was itself subject to a process of translation that
was necessarily not entirely transparent (Young 2001: 169). The essential
point contained in this phrase of Youngs  the question of translating the
translatability of Marxism  indicates a dense and complex conceptual space.
As far as I am concerned, translatability here means: are the component parts
of a given and deployed sequence that is encountered in sensation com-
mensurable with those given by the theory of principle which informs the
overall strategy by which they are grasped? In other words, in my view, this
translatability does not only refer to the articulation between local
strategies and a global revolutionary movement, but also refers to the very
question of application itself. Can the principles put forward in Capital, a
description of the becoming of capital, be applied to a given formation
directly? Is Capital a description of the necessary prerequisites for the
emergence of the social relation called capital, the exclusive blueprint for
the appearance of the world-historical figure of the proletariat, and therefore
a description of the required order of events for the legitimation of politi-
cal struggle? Historically, the Marxist revolutionary project has been essen-
tially riven by this question in its various forms: the national question,
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
123

the question of revolutionary strategy, the question of who leads the


revolutionary process, which social alliances can push the movement
forward in which economically given social period, and so forth.
Young approaches the question of the relation of Marxism to nationalism
from the movement aspect, the ways in which national liberation move-
ments transformed or articulated the Marxist revolutionary project in terms
of their own putatively local conditions. I would like to approach the
question of the relation between the postcolonial and the history of Marxist
historiography from a different perspective  that of theory itself, keeping in
mind this question of application and translation. In other words, how has
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

Marxist theory itself historically accounted for the formation of the local,
how has theory itself been operationalized in relation to this translation of
translatability itself?
Although I acknowledge that these two aspects  movement and theory 
cannot necessarily be so easily dissociated, there is, in my view, an important
reason for provisionally doing so. That is, from certain perspectives, the
question of the postcolonial is frequently treated as a supplement or
collateral question to that of capitalism as a whole. But I would rather
attempt to read the postcolonial in direct relation to, as an inseparable
element of, capitals own drive to ceaselessly expand its supposedly smooth
circuit-process of accumulation everywhere. That is, the postcolonial  as the
name for the condition which indicates the irreversibility of the history of
imperialism and the inscription of this condition into the nation-state 
should not be considered merely as a moment of friction subsumed under
the massive one of capitals accumulation process. Rather, (post)coloniality
and capitals own drive are phenomenal expressions of the same broad
operation of power. Therefore, it is not only in the empirical history of
resistances to colonial rule that we can locate the question of Marxism itself,
but also in relation to how capital itself tends to organize its maturation
process, its life-cycle, through such forms as empire, colony, nation and
state. That is, what would it mean to think the relation of the postcolonial
and Marxist theory from the question of this pharmakon that we have
rephrased from Spivaks usage?
Marxism as a theoretical framework focuses in general not on the moral
or ideological development of a certain formation (although it does not
ignore these factors either), but rather focuses generally on the real
movement of history, and specifically on the analysis of the economically
given social period to clarify its balance of forces. Therefore, Marxism as a
form of thought and as a method of enquiry is always pegged to the
development of capitalism itself, to the shifts and changes in its modality of
reproduction and expansion. Consequently, it is a fact that the decisive
question in every national situation  whether colonial, semi-colonial,
imperial and so forth  for Marxists has always been the theoretical
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 124
.........................
clarification of the particular stage or process of capitalism that is occurring.
Without such a clarification, a party formation could never hope to
effectively orient its practical measures and organizational tactics with the
aim of overthrowing the organized social forces that sustain the given
situation. But capitalism itself does not develop in a vacuum. It does not
develop on a higher order of being where concrete historical practices play
no part. Rather, capitalism develops its internal logic while heterogeneous
practices, operations and functions emerge and submerge throughout its
form. Thus, the theoretical clarification of the question of what stage of
capitalist development is occurring at a given moment is one that is closely
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

bound up with the order of the world in general. Is a certain capitalism


developing similarly to the archetypal English capitalism theorized in
Capital? Or is it developing in the multivalent pattern of Russia, wherein the
development of merchant capital coexists with the semi-feudal village
commune and a muscular Tsarism? Or in another way entirely? What
does it mean to even pose the question in this way, in this vocabulary of
model, pattern and so on? The theoretical clarification of this question is
never a neutral, purely economic or rational judgement, because the
whole network of power which organizes nation-states into a world is itself
something which must be constantly reproduced by renewing its own overall
systematic hierarchy. That is, capital and the form of power which renews
this world order requires that some elements of this broad schema of the
world are on time, others are catching up, and some are too late or
backwards.
Let me attempt to illustrate a history that may assist in considering this
problem, a certain history of the development of Marxist theory in Japan. Of
course, it goes without saying that the real and comprehensive history is
much more complex and thus, the following can only be a brief and
1 For an extensive
description of the incomplete outline of a certain problem.1 After the formation of the Japan
figures involved, see Communist Party (Nihon kyosanto; hereafter JCP) in 1922, internal debate
Hoston (1986). in Marxist theory centred at first around the questions of Marxist
Nevertheless, as
Yutaka Nagahara philosophy (in the major Marxist theorists of the 1910s and 1920s such as
has incisively pointed Kawakami Hajime, Yamakawa Hitoshi and Fukumoto Kazuo, among
out, the theoretical others): the theoretical grasp of subjectivity, the problem of alienation and
essence or conceptual
field of potential that
the historical necessity of the revolutionary mission of the proletariat. After
obtains within the enjoying a level of support in the early 1920s, Fukumotos austere obsession
historical object with the correct line, what would later be understood as the theory of
called the debate on
the primacy of correct ideas  the standpoint of so-called bunri ketsugo or
Japanese capitalism
cannot be elucidated the unification of the party by excising ideologically incorrect elements (see
by simply sorting it Fukumoto 1965: 745)  became the target of denunciation during the
out or tracing back time of publication of the 1927 Comintern Theses, largely authored under
through it
(Nagahara 1998, 149 the influence of Bukharin. The 27 Thesis began to lay out a theoretical line
n.12). which emphasized the two-stage theory of the revolution: Japan was not a
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
125

fully realized modern state, but still overwhelmed with feudal remnants in
the form of parasitic landlordism and so forth, thus initiating the beginnings
of the split which would come to a head with the 32 Thesis. As the major
developed country relative to its neighbouring states and primary im-
perialist power in East Asia, the Comintern considered Japan an important
and pivotal target for the revolutionary project, but in the wake of the 27
Thesis, which emphasized the democractic revolution as an essential
precursor to the socialist transition, the question thus emerged: was Japanese
capitalism ready for socialist revolution  in the conditions on the ground,
was it possible to discover the revolutionary subject of this process?
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

In the clarification of this question emerged the famous and influential


debate on Japanese capitalism (Nihon shihonshugi ronso), a debate whose
centrepiece was the clarification of the essential questions of mode of
production and the historical process of articulation of the social formation:
what stage of development was Japan actually in  how, and by what means,
had Japanese capitalist development proceeded, and did there exist a
concomitant total development of the social formation as a whole, thus
producing the political consciousness necessary for the revolutionary
transition? In the debate on these questions there emerged roughly two
positions: one, which became that of the Rono (LaborFarmer) faction,
who argued that the land reforms instituted in the 1868 Meiji Restoration 
a bourgeoisdemocratic revolution  had begun the solution to the back-
wardness of the countryside, planting the intial seeds that would lead to full
capitalist development; and another, which became that of the Koza
(Lectures) faction, who argued that the Restoration had not been a full
bourgeoisdemocratic revolution, but rather an incomplete transition to
modernity, and that Japanese capitalism was only partially developed, on a
primarily feudal basis. The 27 Thesis, in splitting from earlier emphases on
the immediate socialist revolutionary process, installed the conditions for the
split between the JCP and the Rono faction (particularly Yamakawa Hitoshi
and Inomata Tsunao). But in its 32 Thesis, the Comintern position
reinforced this line even further in parallel to the world situation, by calling
for a mass-based bourgeois democratic revolution against absolutism and
feudalism concretized in the form of the emperor-system (tennosei)
(Comintern 1962). The primary authorial and conceptual influence on this
period of Comintern policy on the national question was Kuusinen, who, in
the 12th Plenum of the Comintern in this same year, called in general for
mass-based actions which subordinated communist demands to the im-
mediate needs of the broad mass front. By arguing that a directly communist
political platform would alienate and keep the party separate from the rural
poor and the non-advanced strata of the working class, this call essentially
began the transition in the Comintern to the line of the popular front
adopted a few years later (1935). In Japan, the Koza factions position and
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 126
.........................
dominance of this debate was comprehensively established with the
publication of their eight-volume Lectures on the History of the Develop-
ment of Japanese Capitalism (Nihon shihonshugi hattatsushi koza) in 1932.
The works in this volume were in preparation well before the publication of
the 32 Thesis, and therefore should be seen not as an expansion of the
position of this Thesis, but rather as preparing the ground for the hegemony
of its position in the wake of the 27 Thesis. The compilation of the Lectures
was overseen by Noro Eitaro, a leader of the JCP, who was arrested and died
in prison two years later in 1934. Noro could be seen as the one who most
concretely laid the groundwork for the overall conceptions of the Koza
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

faction. For him, the only way to truly and effectively articulate the political
consequence of theory, the proletarian strategy, was to focus on the
particularity (tokushusei) of Japanese capitalist development. The reason
for this, Noro claimed, was that, without understanding the dominated
(hishihaiteki) mode of production (i.e. the agrarian semi-feudal structure of
the countryside), one could not understand the particular way in which the
development of the productive forces had necessitated a turn to imperialism.
This basic logic could be understood as the backbone of the position staked
out throughout the volumes of the Lectures.
However, the theoretical centrepiece was probably Yamada Moritaros
Nihon shihonshugi bunseki (Analysis of Japanese Capitalism), which was
later published as a stand-alone volume in 1934. Yamada essentially refined
and developed this argument made by Noro  for him, and by extension for
most of the Koza faction and indeed, largely for the JCP as a whole, the
Japanese social formation was characterized by a fixed and determined
form or model (kata), that is, semi-feudal, semi-serfdom (han-hokenteki
han-nodosei) derived from the basic economic form, semi-serf petty sub-
sistence cultivation (han-reino reisai kosaku) in the rural village (Yamada
1984). Consequently, the primary contradiction in the conjuncture was
understood to be the issue of land, land ownership and the semi-feudal class
role of the landlord stratum. This stratum consisted of a pyramid, at the top
of which was the emperor-system, itself a kind of macro-reflection of the
landlord system and its feudal ideology as a whole. This critique of the
emperor-system was an essential aspect of the Koza factions theoretical and
political line: attacking the emperor-system was an absolutely necessary
mass democratic task precisely because the backwardness of the country-
side and in particular the rural village structure, with its feudal ideology,
total impoverishment, overpopulation and low political consciousness was
for him the vital supporting network for absolutism, militarism and feudal
remnants in political life.
Yamadas argument essentially follows this basic structure: the process of
establishment of industrial capital in Japan (1890s1900s) was not something
characterized by the development of free labour and the free competition of
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
127

capital. Rather, it was formed through the interrelation between a semi-serf


system of tribute collection (han-reinoseiteki nengu choshu) and a semi-slave
system of labour (han-doreiseiteki roeki), and at the same time it provided
for the establishment of industrial capital and the turn to imperialism. This is
the basic determination (kiso kitei) that led to the process of the emergence
and establishment of a semi-serf system, militarist form of finance capital
(han-nodoseiteki gunjiteki kinyu shihon)  the unified form of semi-serf
system militarism and monopoly under the overwhelming role of the huge
zaibatsu conglomerates, as well as the composition of banking capital and
industrial capital. The emergence of finance capital in its first stage was
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

expressed by state ownership of railways before and after the Russo-Japanese


war (1905), and the establishment of finance capital in its second stage was
expressed in its full-fledged form particularly by the Law for Mobilization
in Munitions Manufacturing (1919) during the First World War (Yamada
1984: 141).
Sakisaka Itsuro, on the other hand, viciously criticized Yamada for this
type of formulation, which tended to treat Japanese capitalism as a static,
non-dynamic form which emerged at a particular stage through certain
peculiar conditions, and that thereafter was essentially fixed (Sakisaka
1947). That is, Yamadas understanding of capitals model, pattern,
form or style (kata) could be understood as a deeper level of fixity than
that provided by capital itself; it was something like an underlying semi-
cultural substratum which perverted, twisted and hampered the normal
process of capitalist development, fixing it as a frozen, permanent
distortion. In other words, for Yamada, the whole of the Japanese social
formation was essentially one enormous feudal remnant. Inscribed into the
local motion of capitals circuit-process was this Japanese peculiarity,
creating a tense stasis: while capitals centripetal force would oscillate by
gathering numerous effects towards its centre, this kata would act as a
countervailing centrifugal force, dispersing the capitalization of elements
back to the feedback mechanisms of semi-serfdom and semi-feudalism.
Hence, for Yamada, in the final analysis, this kata was finally or
conclusively (shukyokuteki ni) determined because the specific [tokush-
uteki] and inverted [tentoteki] characteristics of Japanese capitalism are
structurally (categorically and organizationally) grounded in its inferior
world-historical position as a function of its formation process of industrial
capital (Yamada 1984: 4). But as Sakisaka incisively points out, the
circularity of Yamadas logic is the inverse of Marxs own method. The
mere existence of semi-feudal relations within capitalist development is not
sufficient to argue that therefore the latter is subordinated to the former.
Rather, the point is precisely that these feudal relations are themselves placed
within the development of capital, and therefore they do not restrain
capitalism as such. Even if such practices as frequent despotic on-the-spot
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 128
.........................
demands for tenant rent by the local landlord occur in the same manner as
they did under feudalism, the content of this act is completely different  as
Marx remarked on the commodity form itself, it might appear the same, but
a new social soul has popped into its body (Marx and Engels 1975, vol.
35: 734). That is, these practices have been adapted to a completely new
function within the network of social relations stemming from the develop-
ment of the productive forces and relations of production. Therefore, as
Sakisaka points out, in Yamadas work, capitalism itself tends to lose its
historical specificity and tends to be dispersed into a culturalist continuum of
form or style. Although Sakisakas critique is an incisive and devastating
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

attack on Yamada and his disciples, he nevertheless tends towards an


idealism of the opposite variety: that is, for Sakisaka, even the historical
production of specificity is meaningless, precisely because the advent of
capitalism means that every specificity is already in the process of being
dissolved, thus capital for Sakisaka is completely indifferent to specificty.
Thus, he tends to place too much emphasis on the deterritorializing element
of capitalist development, he tends to not see this movement as a constant
and interrupted cycle in which capital deploys itself in a complex and
undulating process of relating to its own gradients of deployment, that
capitals process of creating and forming specificities is part and parcel of
capitals enclosure of the earth.
If Yamada was the leader of Koza faction orthodoxy in political economy,
the distinctive and dominant mode of historiography characteristic of the
faction as a whole had a number of more subtle theoreticians, among them
Hattori Shiso and Hani Goro. Hani, whose most influential work of this
time centred around the explication of the Asiatic mode of production in
relation to the development of capitalism in East Asia, produced a
complementary historiography. In his famous The Development of Capit-
alism in the East he investigated what was, in his view, the tendency all
throughout the Orient towards stagnation and underdevelopment, except
where western imperialism had broken the early feudal situation (Hani
1956). For Hani, the Asiatic element in the Asiatic mode of production
could be characterized, above all else, as essentially a slave or serf-system
mode of production (434). In particular, Hani was a major theoretician of
the comparative analysis of urban and rural development. According to his
argument, the typical transition from feudalism in Europe consisted in a
movement from the countryside to the cities  this new urban underclass
would constitute the raw human material forming the proletarian class in the
advent of early capitalism. However, for Hani, the decisive point is that this
never happened in the Orient  instead, when the old feudal order of the
rural community began to disintegrate, people shifted in the expected mass
exodus to the cities. But the cities themselves had little capitalist develop-
ment, and no burgeoning industry needed this excess population, so people
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
129

returned to their rural villages, now massively overpopulated and under-


employed. As a result, rather than being the seed of proletarianization, they
simply constituted an ultra-exploited human surplus. Further, for Hani, in
such conditions of total devastation and absolute deprivation, there is no
possibility of political development  consciousness remains hopelessly
backwards and feudal, because there is no modern political subjectivation
through forms of work developing into the wage relation. According to
this logic, Japan was definitely part of the East because it shared the
quintessentially eastern problem of overpopulation not in the cities, but in
the rural village. The rural agricultural community, as the bedrock of
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

absolutism, and the cornerstone of the low level of political development,


was the decisive feudal remnant for Hani, and for the JCP as a whole. Hani,
however, was a subtle and careful thinker who drew attention to the
importance of always clarifying the characteristics of a given historical
society. He continually points out (in a certain distance from Noro Eitaro)
that overemphasizing certain particularities results in a subjectivism which
will fail to grasp the specifically social character of capitalism, which is
always located in the balance of forces obtaining within the relations of
production. At the same time, for Hani, he wants continuously to return to
the specifically Asiatic form of despotic dominance, which for him is a
process of robbing the people (minshu) of their energy, their will to
struggle, and it is this form of capitalist development, in which the people
are always too late to the stage of history, which essentially characterizes the
Japanese situation (Hani 1956: 114). Despite Hanis incisive emphasis on the
need always to begin with the concrete relations of production which
characterize a given formation, we see again that here Japanese capitalism
is essentially one enormous feudal remnant, one gigantic expression of
particularity which apparently diverges or deviates from the normal track
of development which is the logic of capital itself.
Hattori Shiso initiated a slightly divergent sub-debate within the struggle
over the origins of capitalism, which later came to be known as the
manufactures debate, staking out his position within the Koza faction with
two highly influential articles: Revolution or Counter-Revolution in the
Meiji Restoration and Problems of Method in the History of the
Restoration (see Hattori 1973a, 1973b). The basic position with which
Hattori theorized the Restoration was that it constituted not a simple
bourgeois revolution, but rather a process through which the hegemonic
social relations under feudalism began to crumble, a period of transition
away from a purely feudal state form to the final form of feudalism, what he
called the absolutist monarchy. In other words, the political consequences
of this argument lay in the notion that while aspects of the bourgeois
revolution had been set in motion, they remained (in the 1930s) unaccom-
plished and unfinished. The reason for this, he argued, was the fact that the
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 130
.........................
reforms undertaken in the Meiji Restoration became simply an opportunity
for reproducing the old feudal relations of exploitation characteristic of the
former feudal system of landholding within the newly emerging social
relations, based on modern land ownership, between the landlord and the
tenant farmer. Thus, he sought clarification of the earlier processes of eco-
nomic development latent in the Bakumatsu period, and the examination of
the first signs of the emerging laws of capitalism. Fundamentally, he argued,
it was precisely the internal development of the seeds of capitalist devel-
opment prior to the opening of the country which accounted for the social
and political upheavals of the time, and therefore he located the motor-force
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

of Japanese capitalism in its internal emergence. For Hattori, the basis of the
form of Japanese capitalism could be seen in the period of the 1840s1890s,
and the development of a type of manufacture  that is, a period of early
development of labour markets through an expanded division of labour in
tasks (often handicrafts), but without a dramatic change in the technical
basis of production. Hattori saw in this a double ambivalence  on the one
hand, such an organization contains the spectre of change (i.e. market-
ization, penetration of the space of work by a primitive form of capital,
gradual transition towards the wage relation, and so on), while on the other
hand it remains wedded to the various embodiments of feudal and absolutist
social characteristics.
Although there are numerous necessary reading strategies of these texts
that I cannot adequately cover here, I want simply to enquire into this
remnant structure of Japanese capitalism put forward in the various forms
deployed by thinkers articulating the historiographical positions of the Koza
faction. Where does this discourse stem from? Certainly, this historical logic
is by no means unique to the Japanese situation. Before these thinkers
developed this question of the feudal remnant (hokenteki zanshi; hokensei
no zansonbutsu), this question of the remnants or survivals of feudalism was
a critical point of debate and contention within the international communist
movement. It was an essential problem that Marx considered in his late work
of the 1870s, and a problem that characterized the discussions of Lenin and
others on the development of capitalism in Russia (see Shanin 1983). Slightly
later, in the mid-to-late 1920s, before Yamada and others theorized this
specific structure of backwardness, the question of feudal survivals was the
distinguishing feature of Stalins discussions of the prospects of the revo-
lutionary movement in China, as well as the central point around which his
line was distinguished from that of Radek, in a number of texts such as his
1927 Talks with Students of the Sun Yat-Sen University. The first question
posed by the students to Stalin was precisely this one: was the Chinese social
formation experiencing the transition to capitalism, the imperialist entry and
capitalization of the existing social relation, or was something completely
different occurring? Was Radek correct to emphasize the role of global
........................
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
131

capital in identifying the primary contradictions in the social formation, or


was this the wrong site of analysis? This something different, the other site
that they ask after, is the question of the feudal remnants (ostatkov
feodalizma), the remains, traces or continued existence of elements of the
feudal system. Stalins reply is precisely that Radeks mistake lies in
underestimating these traces, that he consistently misunderstands how
these traces  Stalin here uses a slightly different phrase, feudal vestiges or
relics (perezhitkov feodalizma)  intersect with the encroachment of world
imperialism into and in concert with the development of the roots of
capitalism in China. That is, Stalin draws attention to the specificity of this
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

situation, the particular hegemonic combination (sochetaniia) in which the


ongoing development of merchant capital in the village coexists with the
maintenance of feudalmedieval methods of exploitation and oppression of
the peasantry (sokhranenii feodalno-srednevekovykh metodov ekspluatatsii
i ugneteniia krestianstva). For Stalin, it is this specific combination that
leads to the particularly militarist nature of capitalism in China, the fact
that militarism and a whole series of feudal survivals therefore constitute a
superstructure built onto the top of this singularity in China. Therefore,
world imperialism and its process of development goes hand-in-hand with
the continuance and strengthening of the whole of the feudalbureaucratic
machine (feodalno byurokraticheskuyu mashinu) (Stalin 1948, vol. 9:
667; 1953, vol. 9: 2435).
Clearly, we should recognize that this conception of the problem is
precisely the same as Yamadas theoretical schematics. In other words, in a
double movement, we cannot reduce the discourse of the feudal remnant to a
theoretical particularity of the Japanese situation. In fact, the Koza faction
form of historiography and political economy is exactly the mainstream
of the global communist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. It is not a
logic, therefore, of the particularity of Japan, it is a logic of particularity
in general. This point is extremely important, because it demonstrates that
the Koza factions intellectual position cannot be dismissed in an inversion
of their own logic: we cannot simply say that they were obsessed with
Japaneseness. On the contrary, they exemplify a general tendency in
Marxist historiography and political economy that locates a global project in
a network of particularities, a project which was developed to an extremely
high theoretical level in the Japaense intellectual world, and it is this broad,
global logic which is the problem.
Thus, one of the essential translational problematics that we can see
operating centrally within this debate on the emergence of capitalism is
precisely the translatability of the conceptual sequence of these terms:
singular, particular, specific, universal, general, etc. How does the singular
 technically, this is how we should understand the term as it is put forward
in various translations as peculiar conditions  come to be conceptually
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 132
.........................
translated as particularity, which in turn comes to be understood as that
which impedes, restrains or holds back the movement of capital? Actually, it
is exactly the opposite. Capital deploys these forces of apparent restraint,
and effects its own movement through its sequencing of these elements. In
other words, capital is not a conditionless zone of expropriation; rather, it
always exists as a telos in imbrication with an entire network of conditions
which it itself deploys. Capitals historical specificity can be found in
precisely the fact that capital attempts to posit as its own grounding and
internal presuppositions a series of things which it itself is not responsible for
creating  but by this attempt to posit these things as such, capital tries to
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

conceal and erase this fact. One of the dramatic failings of the historical
analysis of the Marxist revolutionary project has been precisely this
inaccurate schematism according to which capitalthe universal, while
local conditionsparticular.
Marxs own project does not endorse this logic in the least, but rather
emphasizes that capital grafts itself divergently onto various singularities and
re-computes them. Therefore, the specific conditions which obtain in a
given space should be understood as peculiar in the sense of singular and
not as deviant from something supposedly central or normal: capital
names a relation in which it posits its own deviances. That is, capitalism is
2 O uchi Tsutomu, always mobilizing the particular, not in opposition to the universal, but as
extending the work part of the same movement: capitalism is always something like a continuity
of Uno Kozo,
incisively points out in discontinuity. Therefore, the world of particularities envisaged in a
that paradoxically, global schema of various national forms of development and their temporal
the most apparently position can never be a tool for radical politics: this schematic is capitals
feudal processes in
rural exploitation own blueprint for its expansion as a continuity in discontinuity.2
were not holdovers In general, what is behind this series of problems? The question of the
of feudal power or feudal remnant is not simply a way of talking about the rather obvious
restraints on
capitals overlapping features of unevenness, asymmetricallity or contingency in the
development, but development of modernity  it goes without saying that such feudal
rather structural remnants are always present in capitalist transition. Certain Marxist
elements of Japanese
capitalism itself theoreticians, in particular Rosa Luxemburg, argued that primitive accumu-
(O uchi 1961: 284). lation was not a period, as Marx described it, but rather an ongoing and
That is, he shows endless process of violence against and expropriation of the exterior. But in
clearly that
backwardness is not the prewar Marxist discourse in the Japanese context (and in many other
something local or situations), the feudal remnant is understood first and foremost as a
eternal; rather, it is constraint, a material hindrance on full participation in the world as a
precisely that capital
demands the schema. It is essentially a stand-in term for a remnant ethnos, belonging or
formation of an kinship relations  in short, the traces of Gemeinschaft overlapping the
overall schema of emergence of Gesellschaft  and functions primarily to outline an image of
particularity in order
to effect its own the national community, thereby explaining its position in the international
development. order.
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
........................
133

But as an analytic device and heuristic lever, the entire structure of the
discourse of the feudal remnant is thus reliant on the givenness and
naturality of the form of the nation-state. That is, the national form is
presumed to be something whose characteristics were concretized and fixed
in antiquity, forms that continue to overdetermine the historicity of capitals
entry into the situation. But we must always confront the fact that, roughly
speaking, the national community as a form is broadly co-emergent with
capitals world deployment. In other words, the world as a systematic
generality composed of a network of specificities (nation-states) is a schema
which capitalist development has historically utilized in order to deploy itself
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

(we should always understand this role of the ongoing and repeating
formation and maintenance process of the nation-state in relation to Marxs
discussion of primitive accumulation, the role of enclosure). Therefore,
these thinkers like Yamada, Hani, Hattori and the global Marxist theoretical
culture of the time that they represent, are incapable of understanding the
historical role played by the formation of the nation-state, the process by
which capital then localizes itself in a certain gradient and uses its enclosure
3 In this sense, both
of that gradient to legitimate its own existence.3 In other words, their
of the main trends of analyses are dependent on understanding the form of national specificity as a
the debate on unity that pre-exists the modern advent of a particular, in this case Japanese,
Japanese capitalism
capitalism, the state juridical form, and so forth. But this logic hampers their
fall into the trap of
imagining analyses dramatically; it prevents them entirely from developing a more
community as an theoretically coherent understanding of the phenomenon of backwardness 
accomplished fact in that is, they see backwardness as a fixed, given form and not as an ongoing
its full plenitude, in
precisely the manner production. This problem has largely overdetermined the historical devel-
so comprehensively opment of the Marxian understanding of the national form and its relation
criticized by Jean- to the form of the colony.
Luc Nancy (see
Nancy 1991, p. 11).
Capitalist development, the way in which capital gathers its elements and
deploys itself on a global scale, is always intimately related to its political
and juridical antecedents in the form of structures of commodification and
classification. These structures not only spurred on and necessitated both the
development of the international state system and colonial expansion, but
also and at the same time the development of capitalism, which always
works on a global scale (while nevertheless relying on the national border
and colonial difference to effect its work). Therefore, it seems to me that a
critical site of analysis, one that demonstrates the importance and cruciality
of postcolonial studies, is precisely the analysis of the historical formation of
backwardness, of the epistemological consequences of capitals complex
development as a heterogeneity in homogeneity. In fact, a great many of the
prejudices, the forms of exclusion and inclusion that have historically
structured the modern world, have been formed on the basis of this
judgement of backwardness. Consequently, it seems to me that we must
continually ask this question: why did the internal emergence of the capitalist
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 134
.........................
system require not only the transformation of immediate conditions to be
suitable for the emergence of capital, but also require an expansion
elsewhere and marking of territoriality with the inscription of difference?
Therefore, it is my view that through the analysis of sites such as the
astonishing depth and force of the theoretical legacy of Marxist theory in the
Japanese case, wherein the national question was exposed to an unprece-
dented intensity of analysis, we can expand the potentiality of postcolonial
studies as a critical force in the analysis of contemporary conditions of life.
The project of postcolonial studies has often put these judgements of
backwardness into question for their universalizing assumptions, their
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

inherent Eurocentrism, and their patronizing logic whereby the incapacity of


the natives to effectively revolt is grounded in a putative scientificity. If we
push this tendency further, we can develop this broad problematic of why
and how the colonial difference comes to be inscribed in the national itself,
and how this process of inscription plays an essential role in capitalism. The
Marxist theoretical slippage from singular conditions to particularities
can be itself addressed by this potential of postcolonial studies, to analyse
not particularities as if these exist in a substantial sense, but rather to
analyse the historical production of particularities as part and parcel of
the reproduction of the hierarchy of the world order around the West and
4 On this point, see the Rest.4
Walker 2011, in
I do not mean by this argument to diminish the political importance of the
which I attempt to
read Marxs history of national liberation struggles, and the anticolonial national
understanding of the movements. But it seems to me that the potential of the politicality of
impossible origin of postcolonial studies also lies in this complementary site of analysis, one that
the social relation
called captial by can be creatively developed in order to account for a new situation of
grasping the process capitalist development and global security today, in which the nationalisms
of primitive of the dominated have become compatible and useful effects for this global
accumulation as a
cyclical motion of the domination itself. In other words, if we merely valorize local nationalisms
(re)production of as a theoretical means of resisting the hegemony of imperial nationalism,
difference itself. we will miss the important problem seen in the debates within Marxist
theory on the origins of capitalist development in Japan: if we merely take
the national as a given natural stratum of existence, as a simple
presupposition, we will be unable to identify the essential operation of
how this national element is continually reproduced in tandem with the
reproduction of capital on a global scale.
Hence, Naoki Sakai, for instance, has incisively emphasized that the
identity of belonging to the nation-state always already contains the ir-
reversible time of the history of colonialism, and that therefore the post-
colonial condition which we experience today is precisely the present
existence of the history of colonialism contained within the form of national
belonging (Sakai 2007: 2945). Therefore, the post in postcolonial should
be understood in precisely the way Marx described the post-festum nature
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
........................
135

of all social reason in capitalist society. That is, capital is a social relation
which is always positing its own retrospective legitimation. Similarly, it is
now, in the postcolonial present, that we truly see the end products of the
form of the colony, of the techniques of ordering that were developed in
colonialism. Capitals own process of becoming is constantly showing us this
effect in its own internal operation; in turn, it is Marxs work and project
that attempted most rigorously to expose and conceptually isolate the most
elemental form of this imbrication or complicity. That is, capitalism itself
operates by enclosing and capturing its outside, but it folds this outside back
into itself as if it were an endogenous production. This describes, of course,
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

the process by which capitalist accumulation operates as if it can produce


labour inputs for the production process, when in fact labour power is the
5 In other words, as one thing that capitalism cannot itself create (of course, the specific problem
Uno Kozo of population shows us that capital can create organs of itself capable of
extensively
demonstrated,
regulating labour power, but we will leave this analysis aside for now).5
Capital is something However, we might as well think of this theoretical structure as a general
that cannot directly structure of power, one in which the national question can also be
produce the labour
effectively understood.
power commodity,
but through the Certainly, I do not intend to thus claim that all situations are therefore
formation of the characterized by some moral equivalency or that there is a lack of ethical
relative surplus differentiation between various types of situations. Such judgements can
population in its
accumulation only be made as activepractical relations to a given situation in a given
process, it can moment. But what I want to point out here is that the legacy of colonialism,
indirectly produce it, and the irreparable history of the colonial past, is a sedimented and
so to speak (Uno
1973: 132). That is,
irredeemable element of the form of the nation-state itself  we might even
capital itself does not say that colonization can also be understood as the process of enclosure of
produce labour the nation-state itself, the violent concatenation of elements into a putative
power, but rather
national unity. That is, there can be no such thing as a nation-state which is
produces
assemblages or not bound up to some degree with the colonial index of modernity  hence
mechanisms that why Foucault continuously pointed out in his work of the late 1970s and
transmit or allow this early 1980s that no state can avoid becoming involved in racism at some
absence to pass
through its circuit- point. By this formulation, I do not mean that therefore power relations are
process as if it were a irrelevant. On the contrary, the relations of power among and between
direct production, as nation-states remains a critical problem for politics and thought. But if today
if it were an
immediate and
there is also something like postcoloniality as a general effect which
ready at hand given, conditions global life, it seems to me that this tells us something important
thereby overcoming about the historical and theoretical relation between colonialism and
the instability of the
capitalist development taken as a whole. Indeed, it is this problem that
supply of the labour
power commodity, requires us to formulate new ways of posing the national question to
yet never resolving it. account for this situation today.
I theoretically The contemporary global order of the world, whose unit is the nation-
develop this point in
Walker 2010a and state, is of course stratified and uneven. But capital itself can always account
2010b. for this  in fact, capital names that social relation which relies precisely on
i n t e r v e n t i o n s  13 :1 136
.........................
folding its resistant exterior back into its own internal workings. That is,
capital does not simply feed off its outside or difference  it encompasses the
outside by making it appear and function as if it were posited by its own
interior. Capital in essence may take various distorted national forms, but
even when these forms are apparent deviations, it is accomplishing its own
project. The historical presupposition for the becoming of capitalism is the
existence of certain organized social forces that are capable of commodifying
labour power, forces that are capable of ordering, dividing and redeploying
sequences that have been made commensurable with each other and with
capitalist production. In order for capital to exist, there must have been a set
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

of presuppositions that allowed and fostered its becoming. Many of these


forms are guaranteed and secured by the state, by the way in which the state
gives itself an image of the nation, which folds back on to itself and
legitimates it. Every distorted or particular expression of a putatively
national capital is an expression of the way in which capital has demanded
its own deployment, and this deployment has always been intimately related
to and reliant on the form of the colonial difference, the way specific
difference is organized and inscribed in the state-division of the world. It is
exactly on this point that postcolonial studies can be a critical force, not only
for the critical re-examination of the Marxist theoretical legacy, but also for
the renewal of Marxist theory. That is, postcolonial studies can take up the
national question in a completely different manner from the way Marxist
theory has traditionally understood it, by emphasizing a return to the
relations of production, not merely understood in a strictly economic way,
but in terms of the relations and forces at work in the historico-
epistemological production of backwardness and national particularity
itself. Thus we can analyse the essential role played in the development of the
contemporary state system, the continuing coloniality of power that
characterizes the contemporary world, by the role of the historiographical
proving of backwardness based on the concept area. In turn, an
examination of the epistemological consequences of this production can
assist us in theorizing new possibilities and analytical strategies for the
Marxist project, a project whose revolutionary force and decisive meaning
remain desperately necessary in the historical present.

Acknowledgements

All translations from languages other than English are my own unless
otherwise indicated. I would especially like to thank the anonymous
reviewer(s) for Interventions, whose incisive comments and careful reading
helped me to rethink and reformulate the ideas in this essay.
PO STCOLON IALITY AND THE NATIONAL QU ESTION IN M ARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Gavin Walker
........................
137

R e f e ren c e s

Comintern (1962) Kominterun: Nihon ni kan suru teze Sakai, N. (2007) Nihon/eizo/Beikoku: Kyokan no
shu [Collected Comintern Theses on Japan], Tokyo: kyodotai to teikokuteki kokuminshugi [Japan/
Aoki Shoten. Image/America: The Community of Sympathy and
Fukumoto, K. (1965) [1925] Hoko tenkan wa Imperial Nationalism], Tokyo: Seidosha.
ikanaru sho-katei o toru ka, wareware wa ima sono Sakisaka I. (1947) Nihon shihonshugi bunseki ni
ikanaru katei o katei shitsutsu aru ka: Musansha okeru hohoron [Methodology in the Analysis of
ketsugo ni kan suru Marukusuteki genri [What Japanese Capitalism], in Nihon shihonshugi no
processes constitute the turning point and which shomondai: Shihonshugi to noson no kaikyuteki
of these processes are we currently experiencing? bunka [Problems of Japanese Capitalism: Capital-
On the Marxian principles of proletarian unity], in ism and the Class Differentiation of the Rural
Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 19:07 11 November 2014

Takeuchi Yoshitomo (ed.) Gendai Nihon shiso Village], Tokyo: Odosha, pp. 336.
taikei [Collection of Contemporary Japanese Shanin, T. (ed.) (1983) Late Marx and the Russian
Thought], vol. 21, Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, pp. Road: Marx and The Peripheries of Capitalism,
6187. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Hani, G. (1956) [1932] Toyo ni okeru shihonshugi no Spivak, G. C. (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial
keisei [The development of capitalism in the East] Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing
in Meiji ishinshi kenkyu [Studies on the Meiji Present, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Restoration], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, pp. 1114. Stalin, J. V. (1948) Sochineniia, 13 vols, Moscow:
Hani, G. (n.d.) Hani Goro rekishiron chosakushu Gosudarstvenoe izdatelstvo politicheskoi
[Collected Historical Writings of Hani Goro], literatury.
4 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Stalin, J. V. (1953) Works, 13 vols, Moscow: Foreign
Hattori, S. (1973a) Meiji ishin no kakumei oyobi Languages Publishing House.
han-kakumei [The Meiji Restoration: revolution or Uno, K. (1973) Rodoryoku no kachi to kakaku [The
counter-revolution] in Hattori Shiso zenshu value and price of labour power], in Uno Kozo
[Complete Works of Hattori Shiso], vol. 3, Tokyo: chosakushu [Collected Works of Uno Kozo], vol. 4,
Fukumura Shuppan, pp. 179256. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Hattori, S. (1973b) Ishinshi hohojo no shomondai Walker, G. (2010a) Shihon no kigenteki iki: Hida
[Problems of method in the history of the Restora- toshite no rodoryoku [Capitals Originary
tion] in Hattori Shiso zenshu [Complete Works of Threshold: Labor Power as Fold] in Jokyo, Tokyo:
Hattori Shiso], vol. 4, Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan, Jokyo Shuppan, June 2010, pp. 120134.
pp. 13116. Walker, G. (2010b) Kenryoku toshite no shihon:
Hoston, G. (1986) Marxism and the Crisis of Seijiteki kake to kyo no kishosei [Capital as
Development in Prewar Japan, Princeton: Princeton Power: The Political Wager and the Rarity of the
University Press. Commons] in Jokyo, Tokyo: Jokyo Shuppan,
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975) Collected Works, October 2010, pp. 185203.
50 vols., London, Moscow, and New York: Walker, G. (2011) Primitive Accumulation and the
Lawrence and Wishart, Progress Publishers, and Formation of Difference: On Marx and Schmitt in
International Publishers. Rethinking Marxism, London: Taylor & Francis
Nancy, J-L. (1991) The Inoperative Community, ed. (forthcoming).
Peter Connor. Minneapolis & London: University Yamada, M. (1984) [1934] Nihon shihonshugi
of Minnesota Press. bunseki [Analysis of Japanese Capitalism] in
Nagahara, Y. (1998) A sketch on the hauntology of Yamada Moritaro chosakushu [Collected Works of
capital, Keizai shirin 66(2): 14362. Yamada Moritaro], vol. 2, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nagaoka, S. (1985) Nihon shihonshugi ronso no Young, R. J. C. (2001) Postcolonialism: An Historical
gunzo [A Group Portrait of the Debate on Japanese Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
Capitalism], Tokyo: Aoki Shoten.
O uchi, T. (1961) Nihon shihonshugi no nogyo mondai
[The Agrarian Question in Japanese Capitalism],
revd edn, Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.

También podría gustarte