Abstract:After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, Japan rapidly industrialized, greatly raising its level of economic productivity. However, the peasants were kept in a state of hunger under a semifeudal agricultural system. How should this semi-feudality be understood? About this question arose a debate among Japanese Marxists in prewar Japan: the Debate on Japanese Capitalism. This article examines the methodologies of three analysists of Japanese capitalism focusing on the level of abstraction of the analysis of capitalism, whose ideas were derived from Hegel’s Logic and Marx’s methodology of downward analysis and upward development: Moritarō Yamada of Kōzaha, Itsurō Sakisaka of Rōnōha, and Kōzō Uno, who distanced himself from both sides. Uno criticized Yamada and Sakisaka for directly analyzing a particular Japanese capitalism with a highly general theory such as Capital, and proposed the Three-Stage Theory: the Pure Theory, which is based on the assumption of a pure capitalism, such as Marx’s Capital; the Stage Theory, which clarifies the historical developmental stage of capitalism, such as Lenin’s Imperialism (1917); and the Empirical Analysis, which analyzes capitalism in each country at a given time. However, Uno’s main concern was to analyze Japanese capitalism in the Stage Theory, doing little to further advance it in the Empirical Analysis. Therefore, this article divided the Empirical Analysis into two levels of abstraction: the domain of theoretical construction of Japanese Capitalism, such as Lenin’s Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899), and of data analysis of specific conditions of Japanese capitalism, such as Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England (1844), and thus proposed the Four-Stage Theory. It is a hypothesis for complementing Uno’s Three-Stage Theory, which should be further developed by data. Finally, such methodological consideration for analyzing capitalism is applicable to non-Japanese capitalist societies.

Comments on Japanese "Early Marx" Controversy:The Significances of Glossen zu James Mill on the Reconstruction of Marx’s Alienation Theory

The Dimensionality of Marx's Political Emancipation and Chinese Political Development

A Two-dimensional Analysis of Alienated Labor

The Turning Point of Marx’s Thoughts:the Theory of the Alienation of Commerce in Glossen zu James Mill

Alienation of Communication:Recognition in "Comments on Mill" by Marx

Seiji Mochizuki’s Studies on Marx’Historical Theory of Civic Society

The Essentiality of Marx's Conversion on the Problem of Alienation——Debates between Zhang Kuiliang and Yu wujin

"Japanese Marxism":A New Academic Category

The Exact Content and the Theoretical Status of "Alienation of Communication" in <Mill Notes> of Karl Marx

Comparative Study and Modern Enlightenment of Marx's Labor Alienation and Marcuse's Technique Alienation——From the Viewpoints of Marx and Marcuse

Is Marx's Theory of Alienated Labor in Paris Manuscript Circular Reasoning

The Pre-History Form of Marxist Literary Criticism:A Study of Marx and Engels Literary Criticism between 1833 and 1844

Re-Consideration of the Position and Role of Alienation Theory in Marx's Philosophy

Marxism and the Debate on the Transition to Capitalism in Prewar Japan

Leaping from Speculation to Science——on the Internal Logic of the Generation of Historical Materialism Through Marx' Theory of Alienation

Positive Abandon of Self-Alienation——Inquiry in Marx’s Methodology in His Revealing the Alienated Labor

A New Stage of Studing on Germany Idelolgy

Differentiating and Analyzing "historical Materialism in a Broad Sense"——Reply to Professor Yu Wu-jin

The Homonological Value of Marx's Alienated Labor Theory

Marx and Lacacs's Analysis of the Root of Alicntion

On Grassman's Interpretations of the Structure and Method in Marx's Capital: Considerations on the Political Economy Approaches by Early Frankfurt School