Epistemology Of "das Kapital"

Although contemporary capitalism is attempting to reestablish a new system of relation of production around the world, the fundamental contradiction based on its mode of production cannot be really eliminated. The new form of economic crisis as well as people’s homeless plight in spirit demand us to return to Karl Marx and his Capital.Research about Capital has been conducted by many scholars from both domestic and foreign countries for a long time, but misunderstandings about it have long-existed. Among a considerable amount of research work on it, Althusser’s research has his own unique significance.This thesis sets Althusser’s epistemological investigation into Capital as the main theme. It is designed to give a thorough analysis about Althusser’s conclusions of epistemological investigation into Capital, based on Capital’s problematic, object and nature as the main thread. Meantime, it examines Althusser’s new theoretical perspectives and approaches towards Capital, such as "epistemological break", problematic, and symptomatic reading, etc. Finally, the absence of ontological dimension in Althusser’s study is pointed out and investigation into Capital’s premise, object and nature at the ontological level is taken in this thesis.This thesis consists of four chapters.The first chapter begins with an investigation into Capital’s epistemological premise. Firstly, it examines the problematic, which is considered as the criterion of "epistemological break". Approaches about problematic are also explored, such as symptomatic reading approach, the distinction between ideology and science in the development of Mark’s thought, and the theory of theoretical practice and mode of theoretical production. Research about the scientific structure of problematic is carried out, criticizing empiric structure of problematic, revealing the scientific knowledge’s production conditions, and identifying scientific structure of problematic as the unity determined many-facedly; and finally it observes the production of knowledge in the scientific problematic, the system through which the object of knowledge fits the real object, and the definition of structural causality reflecting structural effect upon every element.Chapter two deals with Capital’s object. Firstly, it constructs a positive definition of Capital’s object through criticizing the theoretical structure of political economy. Then, it turns from political economy’s object to Capital’s object through scrutinizing the humanistic definitions of consumption, distribution and production. Discussions about Capital’s object are conducted from three aspects, namely the definitions of mode of production, surplus value, and of its structural unity. At the end of this chapter, it investigates the relations among Capital’s object, the concepts assisting in the analysis of that object and the problematic.Chapter three discusses the nature of Capital’s theory. Firstly it presents a critical analysis of Hegel’s conception of historical generation, and reviews Mark’s own conception. Then, it demonstrates Capital’s nature as science of historical theory from two perspectives, including the transformation of historical theory from ideology into science and unity of economic theory and historical theory. Finally, the anti-historicism nature of Capital is illustrated through three aspects, namely historicism interpretation of Capital, Capital’s anti-"absolute historicism" nature and the combination of anti-historicism and anti-humanism in Capital.Chapter four conducts a re-exploration about the epistemological investigation into Capital at the ontological level. It argues that the premise of Capital is ontological revolution; then it gives an ontological explanation to Capital’s capitalist mode of production of object, pointing out that object of Capital is also the production of social power. Finally, it states that the nature of Capital is a historic-critical science. This conclusion is achieved by acknowledging that Capital, from the content perspective, reveals the self-criticism of capitalistic relation of production, and criticism of economic categories in theoretical forms.