{"id":5827,"date":"2011-03-10T14:01:05","date_gmt":"2011-03-10T11:01:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/"},"modified":"2011-03-10T14:01:05","modified_gmt":"2011-03-10T11:01:05","slug":"anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-D\u00fchring – Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer – Friedrich Engels"},"content":{"rendered":"

SERMAYE VE ARTI-DE\u011eER
“\u0130lkin, bay Marks, sermaye konusunda, sermayenin \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki ge\u00e7erli iktisadi anlay\u0131\u015fa sahip de\u011fil; tersine, ortaya diyalektik tarihe ba\u011fl\u0131 ve kavramlar ile tarihe uygulanan ba\u015fkala\u015fmalar oyunu i\u00e7ine giren daha \u00f6zel bir fikir atmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Sermaye, ona g\u00f6re, paradan meydana gelir; 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l ile, yani bu d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen d\u00fcnya pazar\u0131n\u0131n ilk ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131 ile ba\u015flayan tarihsel bir evre olu\u015fturur. B\u00f6ylesine bir anlay\u0131\u015f i\u00e7inde, iktisadi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemenin kesinli\u011finin kayboldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin bu yar\u0131-tarihsel yar\u0131-mant\u0131ksal olmak isteyen, ama ger\u00e7ekte tarih ve mant\u0131kta zirzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n melez \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey olmayan bu d\u00fczensiz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinde, anl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ay\u0131rdetme yetisi, kavram\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc uygun kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile birlikte yok olur,” \u2014 ve aldatmaca b\u00f6ylece b\u00fct\u00fcn bir sayfa boyunca s\u00fcr\u00fcp gider. (sayfa: 295)
“Marks’\u0131n sermaye kavram\u0131n\u0131 nitelendirme bi\u00e7imi, ger\u00e7ek iktisat \u00f6\u011fretisinde kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131ktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yaratmaz. … Derin mant\u0131ksal do\u011fruluklar olarak yutturulan bo\u015fluklar. … Hareket noktas\u0131n\u0131n sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131 vb..”
Demek ki, Marks’a g\u00f6re, sermaye, 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda paradan \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f. Bu, maden paran\u0131n, vaktiyle hayvan s\u00fcr\u00fcs\u00fc, ba\u015fka g\u00f6revler aras\u0131nda, para g\u00f6revleri de g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in, tam otuz y\u00fczy\u0131l \u00f6nce hayvan s\u00fcr\u00fcs\u00fcnden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek gibi bir \u015fey oluyor. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini d\u00fcnyada b\u00f6ylesine kaba ve b\u00f6ylesine tuhaf bir bi\u00e7imde dile getirmeye yetenekli olacak bir bay D\u00fchring var. Marks’ta, meta dola\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcrecinin i\u00e7lerinde evrimlendi\u011fi iktisadi bi\u00e7imlerin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesinde, para, son bi\u00e7im olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar.
“Meta dola\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n bu son \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, sermayenin g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilk bi\u00e7imidir. Tarih a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan sermaye, toprak m\u00fclkiyetinin tersine, her zaman ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta para bi\u00e7imini al\u0131yor; paradan olu\u015fan servet, t\u00fcccar ve tefeci sermayesi olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor. Bunu her g\u00fcn kendi g\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fczle g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. Her yeni sermaye, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta sahneye, yani piyasaya, ister meta, ister emek ya da ister para piyasas\u0131na, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde bile, belirli be s\u00fcre\u00e7le sermayeye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fece\u011fi para bi\u00e7iminde \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor.”[22*]
Yani bu, Marks’\u0131n bir kez daha saptad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir olgu. Bu olguya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmakta yeteneksiz olan bay D\u00fchring, bunu \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131r: sermaye, paradan do\u011farm\u0131\u015f!
Marks, paran\u0131n sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u00fcre\u00e7leri irdeleyerek devam eder, ve ilkin paran\u0131n sermaye olarak alt\u0131nda dola\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imin, metalar\u0131n genel e\u015fde\u011feri olarak alt\u0131nda dola\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imin tersine \u00e7evrilmi\u015fi oldu\u011funu bulur. S\u0131radan bir meta sahibi, sat\u0131n almak i\u00e7in satar; gereksinme duymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyi satar, ve elde etti\u011fi para ile, gereksinme duydu\u011fu \u015feyi sat\u0131n al\u0131r. \u0130\u015fe ba\u015flayan kapitalist ise, hemen gereksinme duymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyi sat\u0131n al\u0131r; satmak, ve ilk olarak sat\u0131nalma i\u015finde kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 para de\u011ferini, para bi\u00e7iminde bir \u00e7o\u011falma, Marks’\u0131n art\u0131-de\u011fer ad\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi bir \u00e7o\u011falma ile artm\u0131\u015f olarak, yeniden elde etme amac\u0131yla, daha pahal\u0131ya (sayfa: 296) satmak i\u00e7in sat\u0131n al\u0131r.
Bu art\u0131-de\u011ferin k\u00f6keni nedir? Bu art\u0131-de\u011fer, ne al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n metalar\u0131 de\u011ferin alt\u0131nda sat\u0131n almas\u0131ndan gelebilir, ne de sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n onlar\u0131 de\u011ferin \u00fcst\u00fcnde satmas\u0131ndan. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc, her iki durumda da, herkes s\u0131ras\u0131yla bir sat\u0131c\u0131, bir de al\u0131c\u0131 oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re, her bireyin kazan\u00e7 ve yitikleri birbirini \u00f6d\u00fcnler. Dolandan (hileden) da gelemez, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc dolan ger\u00e7i birini bir ba\u015fkas\u0131 zarar\u0131na zenginle\u015ftirebilir, ama ne her ikisi taraf\u0131ndan sahip olunan tutar\u0131, ne de, genel olarak dola\u015fan de\u011ferler tutar\u0131n\u0131 art\u0131rabilir. “Herhangi bir \u00fclkedeki kapitalist s\u0131n\u0131f, bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak, birbirlerinden k\u00e2r sa\u011flayamazlar.”[23*]
Ama gene de her \u00fclkenin t\u00fcm kapitalistler s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n\u0131n, ald\u0131l\u011f\u0131ndan daha pahal\u0131ya satarak, art\u0131-de\u011feri kendine malederek, g\u00f6zlerimizin \u00f6n\u00fcnde durmadan zenginle\u015fti\u011fini g\u00f6r\u00fcr\u00fcz. \u00d6yleyse gene ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z noktada bulunuyoruz: bu art\u0131-de\u011fer nerden geliyor? \u00c7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi ve salt ekonomik bi\u00e7imde, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc dolan\u0131, herhangi bir zorun her t\u00fcrl\u00fc bir kar\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 d\u0131\u015ftalayarak g\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gereken sorun, i\u015fte budur. Ger\u00e7ekte, e\u015fit de\u011ferlerin her zaman e\u015fit de\u011ferler ile de\u011fi\u015ftirildikleri varsay\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, durmadan ald\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daha pahal\u0131ya satmak nas\u0131l olanakl\u0131 oluyor?
Bu sorunun \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc, Marks’\u0131n yap\u0131t\u0131n\u0131n, en \u00e7a\u011fr a\u00e7\u0131c\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. Bu ba\u015far\u0131, vaktiyle sosyalistlerin burjuva iktisat\u00e7\u0131lardan hi\u00e7 bir \u00fcst\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011fe sahip bulunmaks\u0131z\u0131n en koyu karanl\u0131klarda elyordam\u0131 ile y\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fckleri ekonomik konular \u00fczerine parlak bir \u0131\u015f\u0131k sa\u00e7ar. Bilimsel sosyalizm bu ba\u015far\u0131yla ba\u015flar, bu ba\u015far\u0131 y\u00f6resinde k\u00fcmelenir.
\u00c7\u00f6z\u00fcm \u015fudur: Sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fecek olan paradaki de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131, bu para i\u00e7inde meydana gelemez ya da sat\u0131nalmadan \u00e7\u0131kamaz, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc bu para, burada, meta fiyat\u0131n\u0131 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmekten (paraya \u00e7evirmekten) ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yapmaz; ve e\u015fit de\u011ferlerin de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fini varsayd\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131za g\u00f6re, bu fiyat, meta de\u011ferinden farkl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Ama, ayn\u0131 nedenden \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc, de\u011fer art\u0131\u015f\u0131, meta sat\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan da ileri gelemez. \u00d6yleyse, de\u011fi\u015fiklik, sat\u0131n al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f bulunan meta ile birlikte (sayfa: 297) meydana gelmelidir; de\u011feri \u00fczerinden sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in de\u011feri ile birlikte de\u011fil, ama tersine, kullan\u0131m-de\u011feri olarak kullan\u0131m-de\u011feri ile birlikte, yani de\u011fer de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi meta\u0131n t\u00fcketiminden \u00e7\u0131kmal\u0131d\u0131r.
“Meta\u0131n kullan\u0131m-de\u011ferinden bir de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011feri \u00e7\u0131karabilmek i\u00e7in, paral\u0131 adam\u0131n … pazarda kullan\u0131m-de\u011feri de\u011fi\u015fim-de\u011fer kaynag\u011f olma \u00f6zel niteli\u011fine sahip, \u00f6yle ki t\u00fcketilmesini emek ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirecek ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla de\u011fer yaratacak bir meta bulma talihine sahip olmas\u0131 gerekirdi. Ve dostumuz pazarda bu \u00f6zel nitelikte donat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir metay\u0131 ger\u00e7ekten bulur \u2014 bunun ad\u0131 emek kudreti ya da emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr.”[24*]
Her ne kadar, g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f bulundu\u011fumuz gibi, emek, emek olarak de\u011fer ta\u015f\u0131mazsa da, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc i\u00e7in durum hi\u00e7 de b\u00f6yle de\u011fildir. Emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc, ger\u00e7ekte, bu\u011f\u00fcn oldu\u011fu gibi, meta durumuna gelir gelmez bir de\u011fer kazan\u0131r, ve bu de\u011fer, “\u00f6teki her metada oldu\u011fu gibi, bu \u00f6zel nesnenin \u00fcretimi ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla yeniden \u00fcretimi i\u00e7in gerekli emek-zaman\u0131 ile”[25*] yani i\u015f\u00e7inin kendini \u00e7al\u0131\u015fabilecek durumda tutmak ve neslini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in gereksinme duydu\u011fu ya\u015fama ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcretimi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan gerekli emek-zaman\u0131 ile belirlenir. Bu ya\u015fama ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n, her g\u00fcn i\u00e7in, alt\u0131 saatlik bir emek-zaman\u0131n\u0131 temsil ettiklerini kabul edelim. Buna g\u00f6re, i\u015fini y\u00fcr\u00fctmek i\u00e7in emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc sat\u0131n alan, yani bir i\u015f\u00e7i tutan bizim yeni kapitalistimiz, ona, alt\u0131 saatlik eme\u011fi temsil eden bir para tutar\u0131 \u00f6dedi\u011fi zaman, bu i\u015f\u00e7iye, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn tam g\u00fcnl\u00fck de\u011ferini \u00f6demi\u015f olur. Ne var ki, i\u015f\u00e7i, yeni kapitalistin hizmetinde alt\u0131 saat \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaz, ona giderini, onun \u00f6demi\u015f bulundu\u011fu emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00fcnl\u00fck de\u011ferini tamamen \u00f6demi\u015f bir duruma ge\u00e7er. Ama para, bununla, sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f, art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcretmi\u015f olmaz. Bu nedenle, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131, yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 pazarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n niteli\u011fi konusunda tamamen farkl\u0131 bir kan\u0131ya sahiptir. \u0130\u015f\u00e7iyi yirmid\u00f6rt saat boyunca ya\u015famda tutmak i\u00e7in alt\u0131 saat \u00e7al\u0131\u015fman\u0131n yetmesi, onu yirmid\u00f6rt saatte (sayfa: 298) oniki saat \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktan hi\u00e7 mi hi\u00e7 al\u0131koymaz. Emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn de\u011feri ile bu g\u00fcc\u00fcn \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma (emek) s\u00fcreci i\u00e7inde de\u011ferlendirilmesi iki farkl\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fckt\u00fcr. Paral\u0131 adam emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn g\u00fcnl\u00fck de\u011ferini \u00f6demi\u015ftir, \u00f6yleyse bu g\u00fcc\u00fcn g\u00fcn boyunca kullan\u0131lmas\u0131, yani g\u00fcnl\u00fck \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma da onun mal\u0131d\u0131r. E\u011fer bu g\u00fcc\u00fcn kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n bir g\u00fcnde yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fer, kendi \u00f6z g\u00fcnl\u00fck de\u011ferinin iki kat\u0131ysa, bu, sat\u0131nal\u0131c\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00f6zel bir talihtir, ama meta de\u011fi\u015fimi yasalar\u0131na g\u00f6re, sat\u0131c\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 hi\u00e7 de bir haks\u0131zl\u0131k de\u011fildir. Demek ki, i\u015f\u00e7i, varsay\u0131m\u0131m\u0131za g\u00f6re, paral\u0131 adama her g\u00fcn alt\u0131 saatlik eme\u011finin de\u011fer olarak tutar\u0131na malolur, ama ona her g\u00fcn oniki saatlik eme\u011finin de\u011fer olarak tutar\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar. Paral\u0131 adam yarar\u0131na fark: \u00f6denmemi\u015f alt\u0131 saatlik art\u0131-emek, i\u00e7inde alt\u0131 saatlik eme\u011fin cisimle\u015fti\u011fi \u00f6denmemi\u015f bir art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn. Oyun oynanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcretilmi\u015f, para, sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.
Marks, art\u0131-de\u011ferin do\u011fu\u015f bi\u00e7imini ve meta de\u011fi\u015fimini d\u00fczenleyen yasalar\u0131n egemenli\u011fi alt\u0131nda art\u0131-de\u011ferin do\u011fabilece\u011fi tek bi\u00e7imi b\u00f6ylece tan\u0131tlayarak, bug\u00fcnk\u00fc kapitalist \u00fcretim bi\u00e7imi ile ona dayanan temell\u00fck bi\u00e7iminin i\u015fleyi\u015fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015f, t\u00fcm bug\u00fcnk\u00fc rejimin y\u00f6resinde billurla\u015ft\u0131g\u0131 \u00e7ekirde\u011fi bulmu\u015ftur.
Sermayenin bu do\u011fu\u015fu gene de esas olarak bir ko\u015fula ba\u011fl\u0131:
“Paran\u0131n sermayeye \u00e7evrilebilmesi i\u00e7in, demek ki, para sahibinin \u00f6zg\u00fcr emek\u00e7i ile kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya gelmesi gerekir; bu, emek\u00e7inin iki anlamda \u00f6zg\u00fcr olmas\u0131 demektir: hem emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kendi \u00f6z meta\u0131 gibi satabilecek durumda \u00f6zg\u00fcr bir insan olmas\u0131 gerekir, hem de satmak i\u00e7in elinde ba\u015fka bir meta olmamas\u0131, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmesi i\u00e7in gerekli her \u015feyden yoksun bulunmas\u0131 gerekir.”[26*]
Ama bir yanda para ve meta sahipleri ile \u00f6te yanda kendi \u00f6z emek-g\u00fc\u00e7leri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda hi\u00e7 bir \u015feye sahip olmayanlar aras\u0131ndaki bu ili\u015fki, ne \u015feylerin do\u011fas\u0131nda bulunan, ne de tarihin b\u00fct\u00fcn d\u00f6nemlerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen bir ili\u015fki de\u011fil, “ge\u00e7mi\u015f tarihsel geli\u015fmelerin sonucu, … bir dizi eski toplumsal \u00fcretim bi\u00e7imlerinin yokolup gitmesinin bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k bir (sayfa: 299) \u015feydir.”[27*]
Ve, ger\u00e7ekte, bu \u00f6zg\u00fcr i\u015f\u00e7i, bize, tarihte y\u0131\u011f\u0131nsal olarak kendini ilk kez feodal \u00fcretim bi\u00e7iminin da\u011f\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine, 15 y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n sonu ile 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda g\u00f6sterir. Ama bununla, ve d\u00fcnya ticareti ve d\u00fcnya pazar\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 d\u00f6neme raslayan kurulu\u015fu ile, \u00fczerinde, elde bulunan ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r zenginli\u011fin zorunlu olarak gitgide sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcretimine y\u00f6nelik kapitalist \u00fcretim bi\u00e7iminin zorunlu olarak gitgide tek ba\u015f\u0131na egemen bi\u00e7im durumuna geldi\u011fi temel de verilmi\u015f bulunmaktad\u0131r.
\u015eimdiye de\u011fin, Marks’\u0131n “d\u00fczensiz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler”ini, “anl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ay\u0131rdetme yetisinin, kavram\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc uygun kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile birlikte yok oldu\u011fu” o “tarihte ve mant\u0131kta z\u0131rzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n melez \u00fcr\u00fcnleri”ni izledik. \u015eimdi bu “bo\u015fluklar”\u0131, bay D\u00fchring’in bize sundu\u011fu bi\u00e7imde, “derin mant\u0131ksal do\u011fruluklar” ve “ger\u00e7ek disiplinler anlam\u0131nda kesin bir bilimin son s\u00f6z\u00fc” ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131ral\u0131m.
Demek ki, Marks, sermaye \u00fczerine, sermayenin \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki “ge\u00e7erli ekonomik anlay\u0131\u015f”a sahip de\u011fil; tersine, bir de\u011ferler tutar\u0131n\u0131n, ancak art\u0131-de\u011fer yaratarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi (paraya \u00e7evrildi\u011fi) zaman sermaye durumuna d\u00f6nece\u011fini s\u00f6yler. Ya bay D\u00fchring ne der?
“Sermaye, \u00fcretimi s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek ve genel emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc meyveleri \u00fczerinde ortakl\u0131klar kurmak i\u00e7in ekonomik kudret ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bir kayna\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.”
Bilmece gibi \u00fcsluba, ve deyi\u015fi bir kez daha nitelendiren kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131n, bir \u015fey kesindir: ekonomik kudret ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131, bay D\u00fchring’in kendi terimlerine g\u00f6re, “genel emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc meyveleri \u00fczerinde ortakl\u0131klar”, yani art\u0131-de\u011fer ya da en az\u0131ndan art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn meydana getirmedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece, sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmeksizin, \u00fcretimi, k\u0131yamete kadar s\u00fcrd\u00fcrebilecektir. Demek ki, bay D\u00fchring, onu, sermaye \u00fczerine ge\u00e7erli iktisadi anlay\u0131\u015fa sahip olmaktan allkoyan g\u00fcnah nedeniyle Marks’\u0131 ele\u015ftirirken, sadece kendisi de ayn\u0131 g\u00fcnah\u0131 i\u015flemekle kalmaz, ama ayr\u0131ca Marks’tan, tumturakl\u0131 (sayfa: 300) deyi\u015fler alt\u0131nda “iyi gizlenmemi\u015f” beceriksiz bir \u00e7al\u0131nt\u0131 da yapar.
262. sayfa, a\u00e7\u0131nd\u0131rmaya devam eder:
“Toplumsal anlamda sermaye [ve bay D\u00fchring’e toplumsal anlamda olmayan bir sermaye bulmas\u0131 kal\u0131yor], ger\u00e7ekte, ar\u0131 \u00fcretim arac\u0131ndan \u00f6zg\u00fcl olarak farkl\u0131d\u0131r; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc \u00fcretim arac\u0131 salt teknik bir niteli\u011fe sahip ve b\u00fct\u00fcn ko\u015fullarda zorunlu oldu\u011fu halde, sermaye, kendini, paylara kat\u0131lma ve paylar yaratma toplumsal g\u00fcc\u00fc arac\u0131yla g\u00f6sterir. Ger\u00e7i toplumsal sermaye b\u00fcy\u00fck b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, toplumsal i\u015flevi i\u00e7inde, teknik \u00fcretim arac\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir; ama i\u015fte tam da o i\u015flevin kendisidir ki … ortadan kalkacakt\u0131r.”
E\u011fer bir de\u011ferler tutar\u0131n\u0131n sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmesi i\u00e7in zorunlu “toplumsal i\u015flev”i ilk olarak de\u011ferlendiren kimsenin Marks’\u0131n ta kendisi oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrsek, “Marks’\u0131n sermaye kavram\u0131n\u0131 karakterize etme bi\u00e7iminin”, bay D\u00fchring’in sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, as\u0131l iktisat \u00f6\u011fretisinde de\u011fil, ama, \u2014gere\u011finden \u00e7ok belli oldu\u011fu gibi\u2014, sadece ve sadece, Dersler’de bu s\u00f6z\u00fc ge\u00e7en sermaye kavram\u0131ndan nas\u0131l yararland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 Ele\u015ftirel Tarih’te unutmu\u015f bulunan bay D\u00fchring’in kafas\u0131nda “kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131ktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yaratmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ku\u015fkusuz bu konuda dikkatli her g\u00f6zlemci i\u00e7in hemen ortaya \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r.”
Bununla birlikte, bay D\u00fchring, kendi sermaye tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131, “ar\u0131t\u0131lm\u0131\u015f” bir bi\u00e7im alt\u0131nda da olsa, Marks’tan almakla yetinmez. Onu, hem de bu i\u015ften “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin d\u00fczensiz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri”nden, “bo\u015fluklar”dan, “hareket noktas\u0131n\u0131n sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131”ndan, vb. ba\u015fka hi\u00e7 bir \u015fey \u00e7\u0131kmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 herkesten daha iyi bilerek, “kavramlara ve tarihe uygulanm\u0131\u015f de\u011fi\u015fmeler oyunu”nda da izlemesi gerekir. Sermayenin, onu, ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n emek \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini sahiplenebilecek bir duruma getiren ve basit \u00fcretim arac\u0131ndan ay\u0131rdeden bu “toplumsal i\u015flev”i nerden gelir? bay D\u00fchring, bu i\u015flev “\u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve onlardan vazge\u00e7me teknik olanaks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na” dayanmaz, der. \u00d6yleyse bu g\u00f6revin tarihsel bir k\u00f6keni vard\u0131r, ve 252. sayfada, bay D\u00fchring, bunun k\u00f6kenini, biri, tarihin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131nda, \u00f6tekine kar\u015f\u0131 zor kullanarak kendi \u00fcretim arac\u0131n\u0131 sermaye (sayfa: 301) durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcren iki adamca\u011f\u0131z\u0131n o eski maceras\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zaman, daha \u00f6nce on kez dinledi\u011fimiz \u015feyi yinelemekten ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yapmaz. Ama bir de\u011fer toplam\u0131n\u0131n, kendisi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015femeyece\u011fi toplumsal i\u015fleve tarihsel bir ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 g\u00f6stermekle yetinmeyen bay D\u00fchring, vahiy yolu ile, ona tarihsel bir son da g\u00f6sterir. “Ortadan kalkacak olan\u0131n ta kendisi”, i\u015fte bu i\u015flevdir. Tarihsel bir k\u00f6kene sahip ve gene tarihsel olarak ortadan kalkacak bir olay, g\u00fcnl\u00fck dilde, \u00e7o\u011fu kez “tarihsel evre” ad\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131r. \u00d6yleyse, sermaye, sadece Marks’ta de\u011fil, ama bay D\u00fchring’de de tarihsel bir evredir, ve bu nedenle de, burada ikiy\u00fczl\u00fcler kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bulundu\u011fumuz sonucunu \u00e7\u0131karma zorunday\u0131z. E\u011fer iki adam ayn\u0131 \u015feyi yaparsa, bu ayn\u0131 \u015fey de\u011fildir; e\u011fer Marks, sermaye tarihsel bir evredir derse, bu, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin d\u00fczensiz bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc, tarihte ve mant\u0131kta z\u0131rzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n, kendisiyle birlikte kavram\u0131n her t\u00fcrl\u00fc uygun kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu gibi, ay\u0131rdetme yetisinin de yok oldu\u011fu melez bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcr. E\u011fer bay D\u00fchring, ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, sermayeyi, tarihsel bir evre olarak sunarsa, bu da iktisadi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemenin sa\u011flaml\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kan\u0131t\u0131 ve ger\u00e7ek disiplinler anlam\u0131nda en kesin bilimin en son s\u00f6z\u00fcd\u00fcr.
Peki D\u00fchring ve Marks’ta sermaye fikri birbirinden nerede ayr\u0131l\u0131r?
“Sermaye, der Marks, art\u0131-eme\u011fi icat etmemi\u015ftir. Toplumun bir kesiminin \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131 \u00fczerinde tekele sahip oldu\u011fu her yerde, i\u015f\u00e7i, \u00f6zg\u00fcr olsun olmas\u0131n, kendi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in gerekli emek-zaman\u0131na, \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131na sahip olanlar\u0131n ya\u015famalar\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli t\u00fcketim maddelerini \u00fcretmek i\u00e7in de fazladan bir emek-zaman\u0131n\u0131 eklemek zorunda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.”[28*]
Demek ki, art\u0131-emek, yani i\u015f\u00e7inin korumas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli zaman\u0131n \u00f6tesindeki emek ve art\u0131-emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn ba\u015fkalar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sahiplenilmesi, s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7eli\u015fkileri i\u00e7inde evrimlendikleri \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde, b\u00fct\u00fcn ge\u00e7mi\u015f toplumsal bi\u00e7imlerin ortak \u00f6zelli\u011fidir. Ama sadece bu art\u0131-emek (sayfa: 302) \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, art\u0131-de\u011fer bi\u00e7imini ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131 sahibi s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc konusu olarak kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda \u00f6zg\u00fcr \u2014toplumsal ba\u011flardan ve kendi mal\u0131 olabilecek her \u015feyden \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u2014 i\u015f\u00e7iyi buldu\u011fu ve meta \u00fcretme ere\u011fiyle onu s\u00f6m\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00fcn, sadece o zamand\u0131r ki, Marks’a g\u00f6re, \u00fcretim arac\u0131, \u00f6zg\u00fcl sermaye niteli\u011fini kazan\u0131r. Ve bu i\u015f de, ancak, 15. y\u00fczy\u0131l sonu ve 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l ba\u015f\u0131ndan ba\u015flayarak olmu\u015ftur.
Bay D\u00fchring, buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, “genel emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc meyveleri \u00fczerinde ortakl\u0131klar kuran”, yani hangi bi\u00e7im alt\u0131nda olursa olsun art\u0131-emek sa\u011flayan b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131 toplam\u0131n\u0131 sermaye olarak il\u00e2n eder. Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle, bay D\u00fchring, Marks taraf\u0131ndan bulunan art\u0131-eme\u011fi, gene Marks taraf\u0131ndan bulunan ve bir an i\u00e7in, i\u015fine gelmeyen art\u0131-de\u011feri y\u0131kmak i\u00e7in kullanmak amac\u0131yla, kendine maleder. Yani bay D\u00fchring’e g\u00f6re, sadece m\u00fclklerini k\u00f6lelerle i\u015fleten Korent ve Atina yurtta\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz zenginli\u011fi de\u011fil, ama herhangi bir bi\u00e7imde \u00fcretime yarad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde, \u0130mparatorlu\u011fun b\u00fcy\u00fck Romal\u0131 toprak sahiplerinin zenginli\u011fi ile orta\u00e7a\u011f feodal baronlar\u0131n\u0131n zenginli\u011fi de, ayr\u0131m g\u00f6zetilmeksizin, hep sermayedir.
Demek oluyor ki, bay D\u00fchring de “sermaye \u00fczerine, \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki ge\u00e7erli kavram”a de\u011fil, tersine, \u00fcretilmi\u015f olmayan \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131, topra\u011f\u0131 ve onun do\u011fal kaynaklar\u0131n\u0131 bile kapsayan tamamen kar\u015f\u0131t bir kavrama sahip. Nedir ki, sermayenin d\u00fcped\u00fcz “\u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131” oldu\u011fu fikrinin, yeniden, sadece y\u00fczeysel iktisatta ge\u00e7erli\u011fi vard\u0131r. bay D\u00fchring’in \u00f6ylesine sevdi\u011fi bu y\u00fczeysel iktisat d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, “\u00fcretilmi\u015f \u00fcretim arac\u0131” ya da genel olarak bir de\u011fer tutar\u0131 ancak k\u00e2r ya da faiz getirdi\u011fi, yani \u00f6denmemi\u015f emek art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, art\u0131-de\u011fer bi\u00e7imi alt\u0131nda, ve yeniden, art\u0131-de\u011ferin bu iki belirli \u00e7e\u015fidi bi\u00e7imi alt\u0131nda sahiplenildi\u011fi i\u00e7in, sermaye durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr. B\u00fct\u00fcn burjuva iktisad\u0131n\u0131n, k\u00e2r ya da faiz getirme \u00f6zelli\u011finin, \u00e7ok do\u011fal olarak, normal ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda \u00fcretim ya da de\u011fi\u015fimde kullan\u0131lan herhangi bir de\u011fer tutar\u0131na d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc fikrinin tutsa\u011f\u0131 olmas\u0131, bununla tamamen ilgisiz kal\u0131r. Klasik (sayfa: 303)
Ger\u00e7ekten, i\u015fler, bay D\u00fchring’de b\u00fcsb\u00fct\u00fcn ba\u015fka t\u00fcrl\u00fc olup biter. Ona, bunu daha sonra bizzat kendisi tarihsel bir evre olarak sunmak \u00fczere, sermayenin tarihsel evre olarak betimlenmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, bunu “tarihte ve mant\u0131kta z\u0131rzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n melez \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc” olarak kar\u015f\u0131lamak yetmez: ayr\u0131ca b\u00fct\u00fcn iktisadi kudret ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131, “genel emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc meyvesinden paylar” alan, \u00f6yleyse t\u00fcm s\u0131n\u0131fl\u0131 toplumlardaki toprak m\u00fclkiyeti dahil, b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a sermaye olarak il\u00e2n eder; ama bu durum, Dersler’inin 156. ve daha sonraki sayfalar\u0131nda bol bol g\u00f6r\u00fclebilece\u011fi gibi, daha sonra toprak m\u00fclkiyeti ile toprak rant\u0131n\u0131, gelenekle tam bir uyumluluk durumunda, sermaye ile k\u00e2rdan ay\u0131rmak, ve bunun sonucu sermaye ad\u0131n\u0131 sadece k\u00e2r ya da faiz getiren \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131na saklamak i\u00e7in, ona en k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131 bile vermez. bay D\u00fchring, ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, arabalar\u0131 hareket ettirmeye yarad\u0131klar\u0131na g\u00f6re, atlar\u0131, (sayfa: 304) \u00f6k\u00fczleri, e\u015fekleri ve k\u00f6pekleri hemen lokomotif ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda toplayabilir, ve bug\u00fcnk\u00fc m\u00fchendisleri, lokomotif terimini sadece modern buharl\u0131 arabaya saklayarak, bu terimi, tarihsel bir evre haline getirmekle su\u00e7layabilirdi; onlar\u0131, b\u00f6yle yapmakla, kendilerini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin d\u00fczensiz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerine, tarihte ve mant\u0131kta z\u0131rzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n melezliklerine vb. kapt\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olmakla su\u00e7layabilirdi. Bundan sonra, ona, atlar\u0131n, e\u015feklerin, \u00f6k\u00fczlerin ve k\u00f6peklerin lokomotif adland\u0131rmas\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve bu adland\u0131rman\u0131n sadece buharl\u0131 araba i\u00e7in uygun oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klamaktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey kalmazd\u0131. \u2014 Yani, b\u00f6ylece, iktisadi \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemeye t\u00fcm kesinli\u011fini yitirten \u015feyin, sermaye fikrinin D\u00fchringvari anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 oldu\u011funu; d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin d\u00fczensiz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinin, kar\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n, derin mant\u0131ksal do\u011fruluklar olarak yutturulan bo\u015fluklar\u0131n, hareket noktalar\u0131n\u0131n sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bay D\u00fchring’de p\u0131trak gibi bulundu\u011funu bir kez daha, s\u00f6ylemek zorunda kal\u0131yoruz.
Ama \u00f6nemi yok! bay D\u00fchring, b\u00fct\u00fcn ge\u00e7mi\u015f iktisad\u0131n, b\u00fct\u00fcn siyasetin, ve b\u00fct\u00fcn hukuk \u0131v\u0131r-z\u0131v\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n, k\u0131sacas\u0131 t\u00fcm ge\u00e7mi\u015f tarihin \u00e7evresinde d\u00f6nendi\u011fi ekseni bulmu\u015f olma \u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc koruyacak. Bu eksen, i\u015fte \u015fudur:
“Zor ve emek, toplumsal ba\u011flar\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131nda hesaba kat\u0131lan ba\u015fl\u0131ca iki etkendir.”
Bug\u00fcne kadarki iktisadi d\u00fcnyan\u0131n t\u00fcm anayasas\u0131 bu tek t\u00fcmcede yatar. \u015eu bi\u00e7imde kaleme al\u0131nan son derece k\u0131sa bir anayasa:
Madde 1: Emek, \u00fcretir.
Madde 2: Zor, b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr.
Ve, “kibarca s\u00f6ylemek gerekirse”, bay D\u00fchring’in t\u00fcm iktisat bilgisi de, i\u015fte budur. (sayfa: 305)<\/p>\n

“Bay Marks’\u0131n fikrince \u00fccret, i\u015f\u00e7inin kendi \u00f6z varolu\u015funu olanakl\u0131 k\u0131lmak i\u00e7in ger\u00e7ekten i\u015fba\u015f\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu o emek-zaman\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. Oysa bunun i\u00e7in \u00e7ok az say\u0131da saat yeter; \u00e7o\u011fu kez uzun olan i\u015fg\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn t\u00fcm geri kalan\u0131, yazar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n ‘art\u0131-de\u011fer’ ad\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi ve konu\u015fma dilinde sermaye kazanc\u0131 denilen \u015feyi i\u00e7eren bir art\u0131k (fazlal\u0131k) sa\u011flar. \u00dcretimin her d\u00fczeyinde \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131 ve gerekli hammaddelerde daha \u00f6nce cisimle\u015fmi\u015f bulunan emek-zaman\u0131 bir yana b\u0131rak\u0131l\u0131rsa, i\u015fg\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn bu art\u0131k b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc kapitalist patronun pay\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6yleyse i\u015fg\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn uzamas\u0131, kapitalist yarar\u0131na ar\u0131 bir zorla-alma kazanc\u0131d\u0131r.”
Bay D\u00fchring’e g\u00f6re demek Marks’\u0131n art\u0131-de\u011feri, konu\u015fma dilinde sermaye kazanc\u0131 ya da k\u00e2r denilen \u015feyden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011filmi\u015f. Marks’\u0131n kendisini dinleyelim. Kapital’in 195. sayfas\u0131, art\u0131-de\u011fer, bu terimden sonra ayra\u00e7 i\u00e7ine al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f \u015fu (sayfa: 306) s\u00f6zc\u00fcklerle a\u00e7\u0131klan\u0131r: “Faiz, k\u00e2r, rant.”[29*] Sayfa 210, Marks 71 \u015filinlik bir art\u0131-de\u011fer tutar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7e\u015fitli b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm bi\u00e7imleri alt\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir \u00f6rnek verir: \u00d6\u015f\u00fcr (dimes), yerel vergiler ve devlet vergileri 21 \u015filin, toprak rant\u0131 28 \u015filin, \u00e7ift\u00e7i k\u00e2r\u0131 ve faiz 22 \u015filin, toplam art\u0131-de\u011fer 71 \u015filin.[30*] \u2014 Sayfa 542, Marks Ricardo’da “art\u0131-de\u011ferin ar\u0131 durumda, yani k\u00e2r, toprak rant\u0131 vb. gibi \u00f6zel bi\u00e7imlerinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmemesi”nin ve bunun sonucu Ricardo’nun art\u0131-de\u011fer oran\u0131 yasalar\u0131n\u0131 k\u00e2r oran\u0131 yasalar\u0131 ile do\u011frudan do\u011fruya kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck bir kusur oldu\u011funu bildirir; buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k Marks \u015funu duyurur:
“III. Ktapta [ciltte], belli bir art\u0131-de\u011fer oran\u0131 ile \u00e7e\u015fitli k\u00e2r oranlar\u0131n\u0131 elde edebilece\u011fimizi ve belli ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda ge\u015fitli art\u0131-de\u011fer oranlar\u0131n\u0131n, tek bir k\u00e2r oran\u0131nda ifadelerini bulabilece\u011fini g\u00f6sterece\u011fim.”[31*]
Sayfa 587’de \u015f\u00f6yle der:
“Art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fcreten, yani \u00f6denmemi\u015f ve metalar i\u00e7inde yo\u011funla\u015fm\u0131\u015f eme\u011fi i\u015f\u00e7iden do\u011frudan do\u011fruya kopar\u0131p alan kapitalist, asl\u0131nda bu art\u0131-de\u011ferin ilk sahibi olmakla birlikte, hi\u00e7bir zaman onun son sahibi de\u011fildir. O bunu, toplumsal \u00fcretim s\u00fcrecinin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7inde ba\u015fka g\u00f6revleri yerine getiren ba\u015fka kapitalistlerle, toprak sahipleriyle vb. ikinci dereceden payla\u015fma durumundad\u0131r. Art\u0131-de\u011fer bu nedenle \u00e7e\u015fitli b\u00f6l\u00fcmlere, \u00e7e\u015fitli kategorilere ayr\u0131lan kimselere giden ve sinai k\u00e2r, faiz, t\u00fcccar k\u00e2r\u0131, toprak rant\u0131 vb. gibi birbirinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imler alan \u00e7e\u015fitli par\u00e7alara ayr\u0131l\u0131r. Art\u0131-de\u011ferin bu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015f bi\u00e7imlerini ancak \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kitapta [ciltte] ele alabilece\u011fiz.”[32*]
Ve daha bir\u00e7ok par\u00e7ada ayn\u0131 \u015fey.
\u0130nsan, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini bundan daha a\u00e7\u0131k anlatamaz. Her firsatta Marks, kendi art\u0131-de\u011ferinin k\u00e2r ya da sermaye kazanc\u0131 ile kesinlikle kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, k\u00e2r ya da sermaye kazanc\u0131n\u0131n daha \u00e7ok art\u0131-de\u011ferin bir \u00e7e\u015fidi ve \u00e7o\u011fu kez (sayfa: 307) yaln\u0131zca bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011fu ger\u00e7e\u011fine dikkati \u00e7eker. E\u011fer gene de bay D\u00fchiing, Marks’\u0131n art\u0131-de\u011ferinin “konu\u015fma dilinde sermayenin kazanc\u0131” oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcyorsa, e\u011fer Marks’\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn kitab\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131-de\u011fer y\u00f6resinde d\u00f6nd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ku\u015fku g\u00f6t\u00fcrmez bir \u015feyse, iki \u015feyden biri: Ya bay.D\u00fchring bu kitap hakk\u0131nda bilgiye sahip de\u011fil ve o zaman \u00f6zsel i\u00e7eri\u011fi bilinmeyen bir kitabin iler tutar bir yerini b\u0131rakmamak i\u00e7in g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f bir utanmazl\u0131k gerek; ya da bilgi sahibi ve o zaman bile bile bir \u00e7arp\u0131tma yap\u0131yor.
Daha ilerde:
“Bay Marks’\u0131n bu zorla-alma giri\u015fiminin betimlenmesine e\u015flik etti\u011fi zehirli kin \u00e7ok anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r bir \u015fey. Ama kendini marksist art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00f6\u011fretisinde d\u0131\u015favuran bu teorik tutum kabul edilmeksizin de \u00fccretlilik \u00fczerine kurulu ekonomik bi\u00e7imin s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc niteli\u011fi konusunda daha zorlu bir \u00f6fke ve daha eksiksiz. bir bilgi olanakl\u0131d\u0131r.”
Marks’\u0131n iyi niyetli ama yanl\u0131\u015f teorik tutumu, onda zorla-alma giri\u015fimine kar\u015f\u0131 zehirli bir kin uyand\u0131r\u0131yor; asl\u0131nda ahlaksal olan duygu, bu yanl\u0131\u015f “teorik tutum” sonucu ahlakd\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir anlam kazan\u0131yor; kendini i\u011fren\u00e7 kin ve a\u015fa\u011f\u0131l\u0131k k\u0131zg\u0131nl\u0131k bi\u00e7imi alt\u0131nda g\u00f6steriyor, oysa en kesin bilimin son s\u00f6z\u00fc, kendini bay D\u00fchring’de, hatta bi\u00e7im bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bile ahlaksal ve \u00fcstelik zehirli kinden de nicel bak\u0131mdan daha \u00fcst\u00fcn olan bir \u00f6fke, daha zorlu bir \u00f6fke i\u00e7inde daha az soylu olmayan nitelikte ahlaksal bir \u00f6fke i\u00e7inde g\u00f6sterir. bay D\u00fchring kendi kendine bu ka\u011f\u0131t helvas\u0131n\u0131 verirken, bakal\u0131m bu daha zorlu \u00f6fke nerden geliyor.
“Ger\u00e7ekten, der bay D\u00fchring, daha sonra, ortaya rakip patronlar\u0131n do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderlerinden daha \u00f6nce s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc etmi\u015f bulundu\u011fumuz \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma saatleri fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131 oran\u0131n\u0131n belirtti\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde y\u00fcksek olan ve o d\u00fczeyde, eme\u011fin t\u00fcm \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc ve b\u00f6ylece art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc de s\u00fcrekli olarak nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirebildiklerini (paraya \u00e7evirebildiklerini) bilmek sorunu \u00e7\u0131kar. Marks’\u0131n \u00f6\u011fretisinde ve bu \u00f6\u011fretide bu sorunu ortaya atmak i\u00e7in yer olmamas\u0131 gibi yal\u0131n bir nedenle, bunun yan\u0131t\u0131 bulunmaz. \u00dccretli emek \u00fczerine kurulu \u00fcretimin l\u00fcks niteli\u011fi (sayfa: 308) ciddi olarak hi\u00e7 dikkate al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f ve halk s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc konumlar\u0131 ile birlikte toplumsal yap\u0131l\u0131\u015f hi\u00e7bir zaman beyaz k\u00f6le ticaretinin son nedeni olarak kabul edilmemi\u015ftir. Tersine, siyasal-toplumsal \u00f6\u011fe, a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131n\u0131 her zaman iktisat i\u00e7inde bulmak zorundad\u0131r.”
Yukarda aktar\u0131lan par\u00e7alarda g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f bulunuyoruz ki Marks, hi\u00e7bir zaman art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, onu kendine ilk maleden ki\u015fi olan sanayici kapitalist taraf\u0131ndan, bay D\u00fchring’in burada varsayd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, her zaman ortalama olarak kendi tam de\u011feri \u00fczerinden sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmez. Marks, tecimsel kazanc\u0131n da art\u0131-de\u011ferin bir par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturdu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a s\u00f6yler ve bu da, s\u00f6zkonusu varsay\u0131mda, ancak sanayici \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc t\u00fcccara de\u011ferin alt\u0131nda satar ve b\u00f6ylece ona bir ganimet par\u00e7as\u0131 b\u0131rak\u0131rsa olanakl\u0131d\u0131r. Sorunun burada kondu\u011fu bi\u00e7imde, Marks’ta bu sorunu koyacak yer elbette bulunamazd\u0131. Ussal bi\u00e7imde konunca, sorun \u015f\u00f6yle form\u00fcle edilir: Art\u0131-de\u011fer k\u00e2r, faiz, tecimsel kazan\u00e7, toprak rant\u0131 vb. gibi \u00e7e\u015fitlerine nas\u0131l d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr? Ve ger\u00e7ekte Marks, bu sorunu \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kitapta \u00e7\u00f6zmeyi vaat eder. Ama e\u011fer bay D\u00fchringin Kapital’in ikinci cildinin yay\u0131nlanmas\u0131n\u0131 beklemeye sabr\u0131\u0131 yoksa, bu arada birinci cilde biraz daha yak\u0131ndan bakabilirdi. Daha \u00f6nce aktar\u0131lan par\u00e7alar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, bu durumda \u00f6rne\u011fin 323. sayfada,[33*] Marks’a g\u00f6re kapitalist \u00fcretime \u00f6zg\u00fc yasalar\u0131n, sermayelerin d\u0131\u015f hareketinde rekabetin zorlay\u0131c\u0131 yasalar\u0131 de\u011ferini kazand\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 ve bu bi\u00e7im alt\u0131nda kendilerini kapitalistlere i\u015flemlerinin d\u00fcrt\u00fcleri olarak kabul ettirdiklerini; o halde, t\u0131pk\u0131 g\u00f6k cisimlerinin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrdeki hareketinin ancak onlar\u0131n duyularla alg\u0131lanamayan ger\u00e7ek hareketlerini bilen biri i\u00e7in anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r olmas\u0131 gibi, rekabetin bilimsel bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesinin de sermayenin i\u00e7 \u00f6zl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesini \u00f6ngerektirdi\u011fini, bu konuda Marks’\u0131n bir \u00f6rnek arac\u0131yla belirli bir yasan\u0131n, de\u011fer yasas\u0131n\u0131n, belirli bir durumda kendini rekabet i\u00e7inde nas\u0131l g\u00f6sterip nas\u0131l bir itici g\u00fc\u00e7 rol\u00fc oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini okuyabilirdi. Bay D\u00fchring bundan, rekabetin art\u0131-de\u011ferin b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesinde \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli bir rol oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 (sayfa: 309) sonucunu \u00e7\u0131kartabilirdi, ve biraz d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek ko\u015fuluyla, birinci ciltte verilmi\u015f bulunan bu bilgiler, art\u0131-de\u011ferin kendi \u00e7e\u015fitleri bi\u00e7imine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn, hi\u00e7 de\u011filse ana \u00e7izgileri i\u00e7inde, anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeter.
Bununla birlikte, bay D\u00fchring’e g\u00f6re, rekabet, sorunun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kesin bir engeldir. Rakip patronlar\u0131n, do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderlerinden \u00f6ylesine y\u00fcksek bir d\u00fczeyde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fman\u0131n tam \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, ve b\u00f6ylece, art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, s\u00fcrekli olarak, nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdiklerini (sat\u0131p paraya \u00e7evirdiklerini) tasarlayamaz. Burada, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini, bir kez daha, asl\u0131nda \u00e7apa\u00e7ulluktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey olmayan o bilinen “kesinlik”i ile d\u0131\u015favurur. Art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn, art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn olarak, Marks’ta hi\u00e7 bir \u00fcretimgideri yoktur, bu, \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn kapitaliste hi\u00e7 bir \u015feye malolmayan par\u00e7as\u0131d\u0131r. Yani e\u011fer rakip patronlar, art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, kendi do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri \u00fczerinden ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek isteselerdi, bunlar\u0131 arma\u011fan etmeleri gerekirdi. Ama bu “mikrolojik ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar” \u00fczerinde durmayal\u0131m. Rakip patronlar, asl\u0131nda, her g\u00fcn emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri \u00fczerinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmezler mi? Bay D\u00fchring’e g\u00f6re, do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri, “emek ya da g\u00fc\u00e7 harcamas\u0131ndan olu\u015fur, ve bu da son temel \u00f6\u011felerine de\u011fin beslenme harcamas\u0131 ile \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclebilir”; yani, bug\u00fcnk\u00fc toplumda, elde k\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 zorla kopar\u0131lan “hara\u00e7”, k\u00e2r, fiyat y\u00fckseli\u015finden farkl\u0131 olarak, ger\u00e7ekten yap\u0131lan hammadde, i\u015f arac\u0131 ve \u00fccret harcamalar\u0131ndan olu\u015furlar. Ned\u0131r ki, ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z toplumda, patronlar\u0131n, metalar\u0131n\u0131 do\u011fal \u00fcretim maliyeti \u00fczerinden ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmediklerini, ama hesaplar\u0131nda, ona, s\u00f6z\u00fcmona pahalanmay\u0131, k\u00e2r\u0131 eklediklerini, ve genel kural olarak da, bunu cebe indirdiklerini herkes bilir. M\u00fcteveffa Josu\u00e9’nin Eriha kentinin duvarlar\u0131n\u0131 y\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, Marks’\u0131n t\u00fcm yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 bir \u00fcf\u00fcr\u00fc\u015fte alt\u00fcst etmek i\u00e7in bay D\u00fchring’in ortaya atmaktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey gerekmedi\u011fine inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sorun, o halde bay D\u00fchring’in iktisat teorisi i\u00e7in de s\u00f6zkonusu. Bakal\u0131m bu sorunu nas\u0131l yan\u0131tlar.
“Kapitalist m\u00fclkiyetin, der, pratik anlam\u0131 yoktur, ve e\u011fer ayn\u0131 zamanda insan \u00f6\u011fesi \u00fczerinde dolayl\u0131 zoru i\u00e7ermezse kendini de\u011ferlendiremez. Bu zorun \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc kapitalist kazan\u00e7t\u0131r, (sayfa: 310) o halde bu kazanc\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de, bu egemenlik uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015flik ve yo\u011funlu\u011funa ba\u011fl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. … Kapitalist kazan\u00e7, rekabetten daha g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir etkiye sahip siyasal ve toplumsal bir kurumdur. Bu bak\u0131mdan, patronlar bir birlik olarak i\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcrler ve herkes kendi konumunu savunur. Bir kez egemen bir duruma geldikten sonra, bu t\u00fcr ekonomide belirli bir kapitalist kazan\u00e7 oran\u0131 bir zorunluluktur.”
Rakip patronlar\u0131n, emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc s\u00fcrekli olarak do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri \u00fczerinde nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirebildiklerini (sat\u0131p paraya \u00e7evirebildiklerini) ne yaz\u0131k ki gene bilmiyoruz. Bay D\u00fchring, okurlar\u0131na, vaktiyle Prusya kral\u0131n\u0131n yasan\u0131n \u00fcst\u00fcnde olmas\u0131 gibi, kapitalist kazan\u00e7 da rekabetin \u00fcst\u00fcndedir form\u00fcl\u00fc ile a\u011f\u0131zlar\u0131n\u0131 kapatacak kadar az m\u0131 de\u011fer veriyor? Prusya kral\u0131n\u0131n, yasan\u0131n \u00fcst\u00fcndeki konumuna, sayesinde eri\u015fti\u011fi dalavereleri biliyoruz, kapitalist kazanc\u0131n, sayesinde rekabetten daha g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc olmaya eri\u015fti\u011fi dalaverelere gelince, i\u015fte bay D\u00fchring’in bize a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gereken ve a\u00e7\u0131klamay\u0131 direngenlikle iteledi\u011fi \u015fey de, bu dalaverelerin ta kendisidir. Patronlar\u0131n, onun dedi\u011fi gibi, bu bak\u0131mdan bir birlik gibi i\u015f g\u00f6rmeleri ve onlardan herbirinin kendi konumunu savunmalar\u0131n\u0131n pek bir \u00f6nemi yok. Onun s\u00f6z\u00fcne inanacak, ve i\u00e7lerinden her birinin kendi konumunu savunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, belirli say\u0131da kimsenin bir birlik gibi davranmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli oldu\u011funu mu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnece\u011fiz? Orta\u00e7a\u011f lonca \u00fcyeleri, 1789’un Frans\u0131z soylular\u0131, bilindi\u011fi gibi, birlik olarak b\u00fcy\u00fck bir kararl\u0131l\u0131kla davrand\u0131lar, ve gene de yok oldular. Prusya ordusu da, Yena’da bir birlik gibi davrand\u0131, ve konumunu savunacak yerde, oradan s\u0131v\u0131\u015f\u0131p gitmek ve hatta daha sonra par\u00e7a par\u00e7a teslim olmak zorunda kald\u0131. Bu t\u00fcr egemen ekonomi bir kez verildikten sonra, belirli bir kapitalist kazan\u00e7 oran\u0131n\u0131n bir zorunluluk oldu\u011fu g\u00fcvencesiyle daha \u00e7ok yetinemeyiz; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u00f6zkonusu olan \u015fey, bunun neden b\u00f6yle oldu\u011funun tan\u0131tlanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bay D\u00fchring bize \u015fu haberi verdi\u011fi zaman, ere\u011fe bir parmak bile yakla\u015fm\u0131\u015f olmuyoruz:
“Kapitalist egemenlik, toprak egemenli\u011fi ile ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k i\u00e7inde b\u00fcy\u00fcd\u00fc. Toprak k\u00f6lesi emek\u00e7ilerin bir k\u0131sm\u0131, kentlerde (sayfa: 311) sanat ve meslek i\u015f\u00e7ileri, ve sonunda, fabrika gereci durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc. Kapitalist kazan\u00e7, m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131n\u0131n ikinci bi\u00e7imi olarak, toprak rant\u0131ndan sonra geli\u015fti.”
Hatta bu iddian\u0131n tarihsel yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bir yana b\u0131raksak bile, gene de yal\u0131n bir iddia olarak kal\u0131r ve asl\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 ve tan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 gereken \u015feyi, bir kez daha ileri s\u00fcrmekle yetinir. \u00d6yleyse bay D\u00fchring’in kendi: rakip patronlar, emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fc, s\u00fcrekli olarak, do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri \u00fczerinde nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirebilirler? sorusuna yan\u0131t vermekteki yeteneksizli\u011finden ba\u015fka bir sonuca varamay\u0131z. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle, bay D\u00fchring, k\u00e2r\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamakta yeteneksizdir. Bu durumda ona \u015f\u0131ppadak bir buyrultu \u00e7\u0131karmaktan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey kalm\u0131yor: Kapitalist kazan\u00e7 bir zor \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcr ki bu da, ku\u015fkusuz, D\u00fchring usul\u00fc toplumsal anayasan\u0131n 2. maddesi ile tam bir uygunluk durumundad\u0131r: zor, b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr. \u0130\u015fte ku\u015fkusuz \u00e7ok g\u00fczel s\u00f6ylenmi\u015f bir s\u00f6z; ama \u015fimdi “sorun [da] ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor”: Zor, neyi b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcr? B\u00f6l\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrecek bir \u015feyin olmas\u0131 gerek, yoksa en g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc zor bile, d\u00fcnyan\u0131n en b\u00fcy\u00fck iyi niyeti ile, hi\u00e7bir \u015fey b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcremez. Rakip patronlar\u0131n ceplerine indirdikleri kazan\u00e7, \u00e7ok ger\u00e7ek ve \u00e7ok elle tutulur bir \u015feydir. Zor, onu alabilir, ama \u00fcretemez. Ve e\u011fer bay D\u00fchring, bize patron kazanc\u0131n\u0131 zorun nas\u0131l ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamay\u0131 kabul etmemekte direnirse, onu nereden al\u0131r? sorusuna yan\u0131t vermek s\u00f6zkonusu oldu\u011fu anda mezar sessizli\u011fine b\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcr. Hi\u00e7 bir \u015fey olmayan yerde, kral, ba\u015fka her zor gibi, haklar\u0131n\u0131 yitirir. Hi\u00e7ten, hi\u00e7 bir \u015fey, \u00f6zellikle k\u00e2r \u00e7\u0131kmaz. E\u011fer kapitalist m\u00fclkiyetin pratik anlam\u0131 yoksa, ve e\u011fer ayn\u0131 zamanda insan \u00f6\u011fesi \u00fczerinde dolayl\u0131 zoru i\u00e7ermedik\u00e7e kendini de\u011ferlendiremezse, ortaya yeniden: l\u00b0 yukarda s\u00f6z\u00fc ge\u00e7en baz\u0131 tarihsel iddialarla hi\u00e7 de \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmemi\u015f bir sorun olan, kapitalist zenginli\u011fin bu zora nas\u0131l ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131; 2\u00b0 bu zorun sermayenin de\u011ferlendirilmesi durumuna, k\u00e2r durumuna nas\u0131l d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve 3\u00b0 bu k\u00e2r\u0131 nereden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, sorunu \u00e7ikar.
D\u00fchringgil iktisad\u0131 neresinden tutarsak tutal\u0131m, bir ad\u0131m bile ilerleyemeyiz. B\u00fct\u00fcn ho\u015fa gitmeyen i\u015fler i\u00e7in, k\u00e2r, (sayfa: 312) toprak rant\u0131, a\u00e7l\u0131k \u00fccreti ve i\u015f\u00e7ilerin kulla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in, bu iktisad\u0131n sadece bir tek a\u00e7\u0131klama s\u00f6z\u00fc var: zor, ve her zaman zor ve Bay D\u00fchring’in “en zorlu \u00f6fke”si zora kar\u015f\u0131 bir \u00f6fke durumuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr. Zora ba\u015fvurman\u0131n: 1\u00b0 k\u00f6t\u00fc bir bahane, i\u015fi iktisadi alandan, bir tek iktisadi olay\u0131 bile a\u00e7iklayamayacak siyasal alana bir havale oldu\u011funu, ve 2\u00b0 zorun kendisinin k\u00f6kenini a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131z b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ve b\u00f6yle yapmakla da ak\u0131ll\u0131l\u0131k edildi\u011fini, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc tersi durumda her toplumsal g\u00fc\u00e7 ve her siyasal zorun k\u00f6keninin, daha \u00f6nceki iktisadi ko\u015fullarda, tarihte verildi\u011fi bi\u00e7imiyle her toplumun \u00fcretim ve de\u011fi\u015fim bi\u00e7iminde bulundu\u011fu sonucuna varaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fck.
Gene de, “derin”, ama ac\u0131mas\u0131z iktisat “kurucu”muzdan k\u00e2r \u00fczerine birka\u00e7 a\u00e7\u0131klama daha koparabilip koparamayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 g\u00f6rmeyi deneyelim. E\u011fer onun \u00fccret tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na yana\u015f\u0131rsak, belki bunu ba\u015farabiliriz. 158. sayfada \u015f\u00f6yle der:
“\u00dccret, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn bak\u0131m\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r ve ilkin hesaba, ancak, toprak rant\u0131 ve kapitalist kazanc\u0131n temeli olarak girer. Burada egemen olan ili\u015fkileri tamamen kesin bir bi\u00e7imde a\u00e7\u0131klamak i\u00e7in, toprak rant\u0131 ve onunla birlikte kapitalist kazancin ilkin tarihsel bir bi\u00e7imde, \u00fccretsiz, yani k\u00f6lelik ya da toprak k\u00f6leli\u011fi temeli \u00fczerinde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesi gerekir. … Ya\u015famda tutulmas\u0131 gerekenin k\u00f6le mi, toprak k\u00f6lesi mi, yoksa i\u015f\u00e7i mi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmenin pek bir \u00f6nemi yok; bu, sadece, \u00fcretim giderlerinin y\u00fck\u00fcmlendirilme bi\u00e7iminde bir farkl\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6sterir. Her durum i\u00e7inde, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 arac\u0131yla elde edilmi\u015f net \u00fcr\u00fcn,efendinin gelirini olu\u015fturur. … \u00d6yleyse g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr ki, kendisi gere\u011fince bir yanda herhangi bir \u00e7e\u015fit m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131, ve \u00f6te yanda m\u00fclkiyetten yoksun \u00fccretli eme\u011fin bulundu\u011fu ba\u015f kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k, terimlerinin yaln\u0131z birinde de\u011fil ama her zaman sadece ikisinde birden kavran\u0131labilir.”
Ama “m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131”, 188. sayfada \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fimiz gibi, toprak rant\u0131 ve kapitalist kazan\u00e7 i\u00e7in ortak bir deyimdir. Ayr\u0131ca, 174. sayfada, \u015f\u00f6yle okunur:
“Kapitalist kazancin niteli\u011fi, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn en (sayfa: 313) \u00f6nemli par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n bir sahiplenilmesidir. Bu, \u015fu ya da bu bi\u00e7imde dolays\u0131z ya da dolayl\u0131 olarak egemenlik alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma bi\u00e7imindeki ba\u011fl\u0131la\u015f\u0131k (corr\u00e9latif) \u00f6\u011fe olmadan tasarlanamaz.”
Ve 183. sayfada:
“\u00dccret, b\u00fct\u00fcn durumlarda, i\u015f\u00e7inin bak\u0131m ve \u00e7o\u011falma olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n genel olarak kendisi arac\u0131yla g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131 bir emek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir.”
Ve, son olarak, 195. sayfada:
“M\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fen \u015fey, \u00fccret i\u00e7in zorunlu olarak yitirilecek, ve tersine, genel \u00fcretim kapas\u0131tesi [!] \u00fczerinde eme\u011fe d\u00fc\u015fen \u015fey de zorunlu olarak m\u00fclkiyet gelirinden al\u0131nacakt\u0131r.”
Bay D\u00fchring, bizi \u015fa\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131ktan \u015fa\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011fa d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcyor. De\u011fer teorisinde, ve rekabet \u00f6\u011fretisi de dahil olmak \u00fczere bu \u00f6\u011fretiye de\u011fin de\u011fer teorisini izleyen b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerde, yani 1. sayfadan 155. sayfaya de\u011fin, meta fiyatlar\u0131 ya da de\u011ferler: 1\u00b0 do\u011fal \u00fcretim giderleri ya da \u00fcretim de\u011feri, yani hammadde, i\u015f arac\u0131 ve \u00fccret harcamalar\u0131 ve 2\u00b0 fiyat art\u0131\u015f\u0131 ya da b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm de\u011feri, elde k\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 tekelci s\u0131n\u0131f yarar\u0131na zorla kabul ettirilen hara\u00e7; g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f bulundu\u011fumuz gibi, bir eliyle ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6b\u00fcr eliyle verece\u011fine, ve \u00fcstelik, bay D\u00fchring’in k\u00f6keni ve i\u00e7eri\u011fi \u00fczerine bize bilgi vermi\u015f oldu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde, hi\u00e7ten do\u011fdu\u011funa ve bunun sonucu hi\u00e7 bir \u015feyden bile\u015fmedi\u011fine g\u00f6re, ger\u00e7ekte servet b\u00f6l\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcnde hi\u00e7 bir \u015fey de\u011fi\u015ftiremeyecek bir pahalanma bi\u00e7iminde b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcyorlard\u0131. Gelir t\u00fcrlerini inceleyen daha sonraki iki b\u00f6l\u00fcmde, yani 156. sayfadan 217. sayfaya de\u011fin fiyat art\u0131\u015f\u0131 (pahalanma) art\u0131k s\u00f6zkonusu de\u011fil. Onun yerine, her emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, yani her meta\u0131n de\u011feri, \u015fu iki k\u0131sma b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcr: 1\u00b0 \u0130\u00e7inde \u00f6denen \u00fccretin de bulundu\u011fu \u00fcretim giderleri, ve 2\u00b0 efendinin gelirini olu\u015fturan “emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 arac\u0131yla elde edilmi\u015f net \u00fcr\u00fcn”. Ve bu net \u00fcr\u00fcn, \u00f6ylesine tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f bir \u00e7ehreye sahiptir ki, hi\u00e7 bir d\u00f6vme, hi\u00e7 bir cila onu gizleyemez. “Burada egemen olan ili\u015fkileri ger\u00e7ekten kesin bir bi\u00e7imde a\u00e7\u0131klamak i\u00e7in”, okurun, sadece, bay D\u00fchring’in az \u00f6nce aktard\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z, ve Marks’tan daha \u00f6nce art\u0131-emek, art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn (sayfa: 314) ve art\u0131-de\u011fer \u00fczerine aktar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan par\u00e7alar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na bas\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulunan par\u00e7alar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmekten ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yapmas\u0131 gerekmez. Ve okur, bay D\u00fchring’in, burada, Kapital’i, kendi tarz\u0131nda do\u011frudan do\u011fruya kopya etti\u011fini g\u00f6recektir.
Bay D\u00fchring, art\u0131-eme\u011fi, k\u00f6lelik, toprak k\u00f6leli\u011fi ya da \u00fccretlilik, hangi bi\u00e7im alt\u0131nda olursa olsun, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcze kadar b\u00fct\u00fcn egemen s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n gelirlerinin kayna\u011f\u0131 olarak kabul eder: bir\u00e7ok kez aktar\u0131lan par\u00e7adan al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, Kapital, sayfa 227, “sermaye, art\u0131-eme\u011fi icat etmemi\u015ftir”[34*] vb. \u2014 Ve “efendinin geliri”ni olu\u015fturan “net \u00fcr\u00fcn”, asl\u0131nda emek \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn, bay D\u00fchring’de bile, bir emek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumundaki tamamen gereksiz k\u0131l\u0131k de\u011fi\u015ftirmesine kar\u015f\u0131n, genel olarak i\u015f\u00e7inin bak\u0131m ve \u00e7o\u011falma olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak \u00fccret \u00fczerindeki fazlal\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fka nedir? “Emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn en \u00f6nemli par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n sahiplenilmesi (temell\u00fck\u00fc)”, e\u011fer kapitalistin, Marks’ta oldu\u011fu gibi, i\u015f\u00e7iden, onun t\u00fcketti\u011fi ya\u015fama ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n yeniden-\u00fcretimi i\u00e7in zorunlu olandan daha \u00e7ok emek s\u0131zd\u0131rmas\u0131 nedeniyle, yani kapitalistin i\u015f\u00e7iyi, i\u015f\u00e7iye \u00f6denen \u00fccret de\u011ferinin yerine konmas\u0131 i\u00e7in zorunlu olandan daha uzun zaman \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 nedeniyle olmazsa, ba\u015fka nas\u0131l olasilir? \u00d6yleyse, bay D\u00fchring’in “emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn kullan\u0131lmas\u0131”n\u0131n arkas\u0131nda saklanan \u015fey, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn, i\u015f\u00e7inin ya\u015fama ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n yeniden-\u00fcretimi i\u00e7in gerekli zaman\u0131n \u00f6tesine uzat\u0131lmas\u0131, yani Marks’\u0131n art\u0131-eme\u011fidir, \u2014 ve ba\u015fka hi\u00e7 bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. Ve onun “efendinin net \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc”, kendini marksist art\u0131-\u00fcr\u00fcn ve art\u0131-de\u011fer bi\u00e7iminden ba\u015fka hangi bi\u00e7im alt\u0131nda g\u00f6sterebilir? Ve bay D\u00fchring’in m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131, marksist art\u0131-de\u011ferden, e\u011fer yanl\u0131\u015f anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 ile de\u011filse, ba\u015fka ne ile ayr\u0131l\u0131r? \u00d6te yandan, bay D\u00fchring, “m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131” ad\u0131n\u0131, daha \u00f6nce toprak rant\u0131 ile kapitalist rant\u0131 ya da kapitalist kazanc\u0131n\u0131 rant ortak deyimi alt\u0131nda birle\u015ftiren Rodbertus’tan alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r; \u00f6yle ki, bay D\u00fchring buna, “m\u00fclkiyet”i eklemekten ba\u015fka bir \u015fey yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.[35*] Ve \u00e7al\u0131nt\u0131 \u00fczerinde hi\u00e7 bir ku\u015fku kalmamas\u0131 i\u00e7in, (sayfa: 315) bay D\u00fchring, Marks taraf\u0131ndan, Kapital’in 15. b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde (539 ve daha sonraki sayfalar\u0131nda)[36*] emek-g\u00fcc\u00fc fiyat\u0131nda ve art\u0131-de\u011ferde b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fck de\u011fi\u015fiklikleri \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015f bulunan yasalar\u0131 \u00f6zetler, ve onlar\u0131, \u00f6ylesine kendi tarz\u0131nda \u00f6zetler ki, m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fen \u015fey \u00fccret i\u00e7in, ve \u00fccrete d\u00fc\u015fen \u015fey de m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131 i\u00e7in zorunlu olarak kaybolur; b\u00f6ylece Marks’\u0131n \u00f6z bak\u0131m\u0131ndan o kadar zengin \u00f6zel yasalar\u0131n\u0131 bo\u015f bir yinelemeye (tautologie) indirger, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc iki par\u00e7aya b\u00f6l\u00fcnen bir b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn par\u00e7alar\u0131ndan birinin, \u00f6b\u00fcr\u00fc k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fclmeden b\u00fcy\u00fcyemeyece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. \u0130\u015fte bay D\u00fchring, Marks’\u0131n fikirlerini b\u00f6yle, Marks’\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekten g\u00f6r\u00fclen “ger\u00e7ek disiplinler anlam\u0131nda en kesin bilimin son s\u00f6z\u00fc” tamamen g\u00f6zden yitirilecek bi\u00e7imde, kendine maletmeyi ba\u015farm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
B\u00f6ylece, bay D\u00fchring’in Ele\u015ftirel Tarih’te Kapital konusunda kopard\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f yaygara, ve \u00f6zellikle art\u0131-de\u011fere ili\u015fkin \u2014ve kendisi de yan\u0131t veremedi\u011fine g\u00f6re, sormamakla daha iyi yapaca\u011f\u0131\u2014 o \u00fcnl\u00fc soru ile meydana getirdi\u011fi s\u00f6z kas\u0131rgas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, b\u00fct\u00fcn bunlar\u0131n Dersler’inde Marks’tan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kaba a\u015f\u0131rmay\u0131 saklamak i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurulan sava\u015f hilelerinden, ustaca manevralardan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kan\u0131s\u0131ndan kendimizi kurtaramay\u0131z. Ger\u00e7ekten, bay D\u00fchring, okurlar\u0131na, “bay Marks’\u0131n Kapital ad\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi arapsa\u00e7\u0131” ile u\u011fra\u015fmaktan vazge\u00e7melerini \u00f6\u011f\u00fctlemekte, tarihte ve mant\u0131kta z\u0131rzop\u00e7a fikirlere sahip bir kafan\u0131n melez \u00fcr\u00fcnleri, Hegel’in bulan\u0131k ve kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceleri, ve sa\u00e7ma s\u00f6zleri vb. kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda onlar\u0131 uyarmakta yerden g\u00f6\u011fe kadar hakl\u0131yd\u0131. Bu dindar Eckart, Alman gen\u00e7li\u011fini kendisine kar\u015f\u0131 uyard\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ven\u00fcs’\u00fc[37*] Marks’la rekabete girerek, ki\u015fisel kullan\u0131m ere\u011fiyle mahfuz bir yerde bir kenara \u00e7ekmek i\u00e7in, gizlice, aramaya gitmi\u015fti. Marks’\u0131n, emek-g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn kullan\u0131lmas\u0131yla elde edilen bu net \u00fcr\u00fcnden, ve marksist art\u0131-de\u011feri m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131 ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda kendine maletmesinin, Marks’\u0131n art\u0131-de\u011ferden k\u00e2r ya da (sayfa: 316) kapitalist kazan\u00e7tan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yolundaki direngen \u2014\u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc iki bask\u0131da da yinelenmi\u015f\u2014 ve yanl\u0131\u015f sav\u0131n\u0131n nedenleri \u00fczerine tuttu\u011fu \u00f6zg\u00fcr \u0131\u015f\u0131ktan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc onu kutlar\u0131z.
Ve b\u00f6ylece, bay D\u00fchring’in ba\u015far\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 (performances), kendi s\u00f6zleriyle \u015f\u00f6ylece betimlememiz gerek: “Bay [D\u00fchring]’in kan\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re \u00fccret, i\u015f\u00e7inin kendi \u00f6z varolu\u015funu olanakl\u0131 k\u0131lmak i\u00e7in ger\u00e7ekten i\u015f ba\u015f\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu o emek-zaman\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. Oysa bunun i\u00e7in, \u00e7ok az say\u0131da saat yeter, \u00e7o\u011fu kez uzun olan i\u015fg\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn t\u00fcm geri kalan\u0131, yazar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n [m\u00fclkiyet rant\u0131] ad\u0131n\u0131 verdi\u011fi \u015feyi i\u00e7eren bir art\u0131 sa\u011flar. \u00dcretimin her d\u00fczeyinde \u00fcretim ara\u00e7lar\u0131 ve gerekli hammaddelerde daha \u00f6nce cisimle\u015fmi\u015f bulunan emek-zaman\u0131 bir yana b\u0131rak\u0131l\u0131rsa, i\u015fg\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn uzamas\u0131 kapitalist yarar\u0131na bir zorla-alma kazanc\u0131d\u0131r. Bay [D\u00fchring]’in bu zorla-alma giri\u015fiminin betimlemesine e\u015flik etti\u011fi zehirli kin \u00e7ok anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r bir \u015feydir…” Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, bu \u00e7al\u0131nt\u0131dan sonra, “daha zorlu \u00f6fke”sine nas\u0131l d\u00f6nece\u011fi, \u00e7ok daha az anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r bir \u015fey. (sayfa: 317)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SERMAYE VE ARTI-DE\u011eER “\u0130lkin, bay Marks, sermaye konusunda, sermayenin \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki ge\u00e7erli iktisadi anlay\u0131\u015fa sahip de\u011fil; tersine, ortaya diyalektik tarihe ba\u011fl\u0131 ve kavramlar ile tarihe uygulanan ba\u015fkala\u015fmalar oyunu i\u00e7ine giren daha \u00f6zel bir fikir atmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Sermaye, ona g\u00f6re, paradan meydana gelir; 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l ile, yani bu d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-5827","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-anti-duhring-friedrich-engels"},"yoast_head":"\nAnti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels - narteks.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SERMAYE VE ARTI-DE\u011eER “\u0130lkin, bay Marks, sermaye konusunda, sermayenin \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki ge\u00e7erli iktisadi anlay\u0131\u015fa sahip de\u011fil; tersine, ortaya diyalektik tarihe ba\u011fl\u0131 ve kavramlar ile tarihe uygulanan ba\u015fkala\u015fmalar oyunu i\u00e7ine giren daha \u00f6zel bir fikir atmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Sermaye, ona g\u00f6re, paradan meydana gelir; 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l ile, yani bu d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"narteks.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"90\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Yazan:\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\"},\"headline\":\"Anti-D\u00fchring – Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer – Friedrich Engels\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\"},\"wordCount\":8078,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Anti-D\u00fchring - Friedrich Engels\"],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\",\"name\":\"Anti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels - narteks.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anti-D\u00fchring – Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer – Friedrich Engels\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"description\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"narteks.net\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/narteks\",\"https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\",\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tar\u0131k\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/narteks.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels - narteks.net","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels","og_description":"SERMAYE VE ARTI-DE\u011eER “\u0130lkin, bay Marks, sermaye konusunda, sermayenin \u00fcretilmi\u015f bir \u00fcretim arac\u0131 oldu\u011fu yolundaki ge\u00e7erli iktisadi anlay\u0131\u015fa sahip de\u011fil; tersine, ortaya diyalektik tarihe ba\u011fl\u0131 ve kavramlar ile tarihe uygulanan ba\u015fkala\u015fmalar oyunu i\u00e7ine giren daha \u00f6zel bir fikir atmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Sermaye, ona g\u00f6re, paradan meydana gelir; 16. y\u00fczy\u0131l ile, yani bu d\u00f6nemde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul […]","og_url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/","og_site_name":"narteks.net","article_published_time":"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":90,"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Tar\u0131k","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@narteks","twitter_site":"@narteks","twitter_misc":{"Yazan:":"Tar\u0131k","Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"40 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/"},"author":{"name":"Tar\u0131k","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca"},"headline":"Anti-D\u00fchring – Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer – Friedrich Engels","datePublished":"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/"},"wordCount":8078,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Anti-D\u00fchring - Friedrich Engels"],"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/","name":"Anti-D\u00fchring - Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer - Friedrich Engels - narteks.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-10T11:01:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/10\/anti-duhring-ekonomi-politik-sermaye-ve-arti-deger-friedrich-engels\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anti-D\u00fchring – Ekonomi Politik | Sermaye ve Art\u0131 De\u011fer – Friedrich Engels"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","name":"narteks.net","description":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization","name":"narteks.net","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","width":300,"height":90,"caption":"narteks.net"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/narteks","https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca","name":"Tar\u0131k","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tar\u0131k"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/narteks.net"],"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}