I analysed Bourdieu`s `cultural reproduction theory` and criticized its limitations in relation to the educational will and effects of literary works selected by a certain educational system under special circumstances. It was in La Reproduction(written in collaboration with J.C. Passeron, 1970) that the characteristic of education was described in France as violence between classes or as concealment of social relations. We can point out the limitations of this theory in the following two aspects. Firstly, their argument about ideology appears to be a synthesis integrating non scientific Marxism, scientific Marxism, Weberian theory and Gramsci`s thought, etc. But they cannot clearly derive from it relative autonomy of cultural domain which is their fundamental notion. Althusser`s papers, presented almost at the same time, provide a possible solution to the weakness in Bourdieu`s theory. Althusserian `reproduction theory` raised the specific structural problem of the Hegelian dialectic and it solved the question through the concept of overdetermination of contradictions. The concept of overdetermination of contradictions is based on the premise that the essence of things is nevertheless simple. Althusser renounced that the complexity theory of phenomena, having its origin in Plato, is the result of simplicity of essence. Instead, he insisted that complexity derives from complexity. According to Althusser, there never exists a simple basic unity but there exists the-always-already-given-of a structured complex unity(le-toujours-de´raㄱ｀-donne´ d`une unite´ complex structure´e). Althusser grasps the concept of domination engraved in the complex structure and he prescribed that all things or phenomena existent in the world as structure in domination. Secondly, the limitations of Bourdieu and Passeron`s theory is due to our doubt about the possibility of forming the concept of `cultural capital` which plays the main role in Bourdieu`s `reproduction theory`. Since this concept is based on the Marxist concept `capital`, it`s very appropriate to compare these two concepts. Capital, labour power, value creation by labour and exploitation in Marxist analysis are important concepts and at the same time they consist of the necessary conditions of capitalism. Compared with this, the social or cultural capital which is the fundamental concept of Bourdieu`s analysis of capitalism, cannot go with labour and exploitation. In fact, Bourdieu gives up an analysis of a society where a capitalist product system is dominant, and instead, he just converts the distinctive groups corresponding to the distinction between cultural differences to social classes. In conclusion, Bourdieu`s `reproduction theory` is not pertinent to show educational effect and educational will through literary works. It is fit rather for explaining why some people prefer reading Henry James` novels to reading Aesop`s Fable, or why `Pierre Cardin` cannot stand among the foremost manufactures etc. If Bourdieu`s concept `distinction` can be understood as a cultural mode of existence, it cannot be a new device for a new class producing power. This is the result of a cultural Marxist`s theory into which he brought the `real collective representation` and `the legitimacy approving arbitrary and violent relations` together, and even applied the concepts-power, force, will, distinction, distance, the body, etc.-found in Nietzsche without careful reflection.