Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Kozo Uno
Kozo Uno (宇野 弘蔵, Uno Kōzō; November 12, 1897 – February 22, 1977) was a Japanese economist and is considered one of the most important theorists on the field of Marx's theory of value.
He is an influential Marxist economist in Japan, where his school of thought is called the Uno School (Uno gakuha) . His main work Principles of Economics [経済原論] was published in 1950-52. Among his scholars are Thomas T. Sekine and Makoto Itoh.
Uno based his work on a rigorously Hegelian reading of Marx's Capital. This led him to his well-known conclusion that Marxian analysis had to be conducted at three separate levels:
Uno and his followers have come in for criticism from the wider Marxist tradition for insisting on this separation. Simon Clarke sees this schema as "scholastic formalism", and the second level as an arbitrary addition to provide a link between the other two, rather than an analytically necessary one. As Kincaid points out, though, Capital is primarily a logically rather than chronologically argued work, which looks at the laws of capitalist development and draws mainly supporting evidence from historical data. Thus, the separation of the Uno school represents an acknowledgement of this logical nature, and registers the key problem of how the critique can be linked to actual economic development in a way that competing schools often cannot.
1897
1915
1918
1921
Hub AI
Kozo Uno AI simulator
(@Kozo Uno_simulator)
Kozo Uno
Kozo Uno (宇野 弘蔵, Uno Kōzō; November 12, 1897 – February 22, 1977) was a Japanese economist and is considered one of the most important theorists on the field of Marx's theory of value.
He is an influential Marxist economist in Japan, where his school of thought is called the Uno School (Uno gakuha) . His main work Principles of Economics [経済原論] was published in 1950-52. Among his scholars are Thomas T. Sekine and Makoto Itoh.
Uno based his work on a rigorously Hegelian reading of Marx's Capital. This led him to his well-known conclusion that Marxian analysis had to be conducted at three separate levels:
Uno and his followers have come in for criticism from the wider Marxist tradition for insisting on this separation. Simon Clarke sees this schema as "scholastic formalism", and the second level as an arbitrary addition to provide a link between the other two, rather than an analytically necessary one. As Kincaid points out, though, Capital is primarily a logically rather than chronologically argued work, which looks at the laws of capitalist development and draws mainly supporting evidence from historical data. Thus, the separation of the Uno school represents an acknowledgement of this logical nature, and registers the key problem of how the critique can be linked to actual economic development in a way that competing schools often cannot.
1897
1915
1918
1921