著者
太田 仁樹
出版者
岡山大学経済学会
雑誌
岡山大学経済学会雑誌 (ISSN:03863069)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.39, no.3, pp.265-278, 2007-12

本シリーズでレーニン研究をとり上げるのは,1999年の第10回「岡田和彦著『レーニンの市場と計画の理論』によせて」以来2回目である。先稿の冒頭において,日本のレーニン研究の状況について,つぎのように述べた。「「レーニン研究」と称して,自らの政治的プロパガンダをおこなおうとする著作は汗牛充棟であるが,日本の学界はレーニンを対象とする研究を数えるほどしか産出していない」(太田[1999],53)。その後8年を経過したが,レーニンを対象とする本格的な学問的研究が日本でほとんどなされていない状況はそれほど変わっていない。しかしながら,レーニン没後80年の2004年前後には,レーニンについて一部で語られる状況が現われた。上島武・村岡到編の論文集『レーニン:革命ロシアの光と影』(上島・村岡編[2005])は,2004年におこなわれたレーニン没後80年を記念するシンポジウムをもとにした著作であるが,レーニンを論ずると称して自らの政治的見解を開陳することに終始する従来型の論考も見られる。今回の「レーニン論」の若干の特徴は,かつてのレーニン礼賛の裏返しとして,レーニンに対する罵倒を重ねているが,歴史的存在としてレーニンを理解しようとする姿勢がなく,レーニンを理解するべく蓄積された研究史を踏まえず,「現代的な意義」の否定に躍起になっているところにある。方向は逆向きであるが,かつての状況の繰り返しである。ただし,この論集には森岡真史「レーニンと「収奪者の収奪」」のような本格的な研究の成果も含まれている点で今後の学問的研究の発展につながる可能性もある。同年に出版された長原豊・白井聡編の論集『別冊情況特集レーニン〈再見〉:あるいは反時代的レーニン』(長原・白井編[2005])は,外国人の論考を訳出し日本人の論考も加えた論集であるが,崎山政毅「ラテンアメリカ〈と〉レーニン」などを除けば,歴史的な存在としてのレーニンにこだわることなく,「現代」に関する自らの見解を展開したものであり,1970年代にはよく見られたスタイルの著作になっている。この意味で「反時代的」な著作となっているが,学問的研究の成果に背を向けている点では伝統的な論文集といえよう。ほぼ同じ時期に,韓国の雑誌『マルクス主義研究』第2号は「レーニン主義の現在性」という特集を組み,編集長のチョン・ソンジン自身が「レーニンの経済学批判」( [2004])という論考で、レーニンの経済理論について批判的な検討をおこなっている。チョン論文は,レーニンの理論の現代的妥当性をの存否を検証しようとするものであるが,歴史的存在としてのレーニンに関する先行する学問的研究を踏まえ,先行研究にたいして自説を対置するという,オーソドックスな手法によりレーニン理解を一歩進めようとするものであり,上記の2論集に含まれる研究史を無視した現代性の否定や称揚とは一線を画するものであり,学問的レーニン研究の前進に裨益するものである。白井氏の著作は,日本でひさびさに現われたレーニンに関する単著である。白井氏は上記の『別冊情況』の編者でもあり,レーニンの現代性を称揚する立場に立つ点で,伝統的レーニン論者の一タイプであるといえる。この著作もレーニン礼賛本の一種と言ってよいが,従来の礼賛本とは異なったものが見受けられ,レーニン受容の現代的特徴を示すものとなっている。
著者
太田 仁樹
出版者
岡山大学経済学会
雑誌
岡山大学経済学会雑誌 (ISSN:24334146)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.51, no.1, pp.1-18, 2019-07-16

1. Diffusion of Marxism and inflation of the concept "proletariat"</br>The concept of "proletariat" is the central concept of Marxism. However, its content varies according to times and regions. For Marx and Engels, proletarias are workers who work in the capitalist large industries, they overthrow the rule of capitalists through the revolution and are the subjects of the construction of society in the future. Kautsky put workers in small factories and small farmers into the category of proletariat. Lenin overestimated capitalist development in Russia and included farmers without horses into proletariat. In Mao Zedong, agricultural workers, rumpen, handmade workers, peasants, clerks and peddlers are also allowed to participate in the revolution. The concept of proletariat is inflated. As the region moves away from the center of the world system, the scope of participants in the revolution has been expanded.</br>2. "Proletariat" in Marx's view on social development</br>In Marx, proletariat is given a privileged position as a revolutionary subject in the capitalist society. In the "formulation" of historical materialism, modern bourgeois society is given a privileged position in human history. Proletariat is privileged in dual sense. In this formulation, there is no social antagonism in the future society that Marx believes. This future society should be called a "community without law and state". It is recognized that the development of capitalist production increases the number of workers and the ordinary electoral system increases possibilities of acquiring a working-class regime. Still, Capital insists that the revolution is inevitable. Marx and Engels never abandoned "revolutionism" throughout their lives.</br>3. Marx's revolutionary strategy and British working class</br> For Marx and Engels, England is a typical country of capitalistic development, giving models to other countries.However, the English working class in the mid-19th century was not "revolutionary". The English labor movement during this period had been internalized under the guidance of the "labor aristocrat". Working class was integrated as "nation". While cooperating with the reformists politically, Marx was argueing revolutionism in scientific books. While cooperating with the reformists politically, Marx was advocating revolutionism in Capital. In modern bourgeois society, it is usual that labor classes are integrated into a system as "nation" and labor movement is to become reformistic, but Marx could not analyze this situation as a problem of upper structure of capitalism in general. In England Marx cooperated with the reformist labor movement, but could not abandon his revolutionism.</br>4. Reform Movement and Revolutionism: German Revisionism Controversy and Russian Party Organization Controversy</br>At the German Social Democratic Party, there was coexistence of reformistic practice and ideology of revolutionism. Kautsky was a personal expression of this coexistence. He adhered to revolutionism, but acknowledged that socialist consciousness was brought into labor movement from the outside historically. Bernstein claimed that revolutionism is an obstacle to workers' reform movement. In the controversy concerning the organization of the Russian Social Democratic Party, from the standpoint of revolutionalism, Lenin argued that "external injection" is necessary because the workers' reform movement and the revolutionary socialist movement are not directly connected. The revolutionary forces are not necessarily the product of the capitalist big industry. Those who have abilities to resist the capitalist system, they can participate in the socialist revolution through the "external injection" of the revolutionary party. It can be said that the logic of "external injection" made it possible to disseminate Marxism to the semi-periphery and periphery.</br>5. Conclusion</br>The Marxist revolution theory is understood as the theory of "revolution of developed countryies". This is because it assumes the proletariat produced by the capitalist big industry as the revolutionary subject. In the case of Marx, its understanding is correct. However, the successful acquisition of the regime by the Marxist was in "backward countries". It can be said that the key to solving this paradox was in the unreality of the concept of "proletariat" at the core of Marx's revolutionism. Marx's "proletariat" has no realities in the working class in center of modern capitalit world system ("developed capitalist countries"). On the other hand, various anti-systemic forces were formed as a revolutionary subject entity or "proletariat" by "external injection" of the revolutionary parties in semi-periphery and periphery (the "backward areas"). Rosa Luxemburg called as "clique management (Cliquenwirtschaft)" the regime that such forces could aquire. Under the "clique management" system, people remained in the object of governance and never became the subject.
著者
太田 仁樹
出版者
The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought
雑誌
経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.46, no.46, pp.17-30, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)
参考文献数
59

The Austrian national theory is understood with the names of Karl Renner and Otto Bauer. While many people realized that the existence of a nation-state cannot remove the occurence of national confrontation, much attention was lavished on their conception of personal national autonomy. However, the basis on which their concept is graunded is not fully made clear. This paper examines “the right of self-determination of nations” of Karl Renner, who advocated the policy of personal national autonomy, and intends to clarify the theoretical basis of his conception of personal national autonomy.Renner understood the nation as a personal language-culture community, and understood the state as a territorial community. Modern nationalism aims at the construction of a nation-state in which race and state correspond. This nationalism intends to unify these two social groups which are based on heterogeneous principles. Modern national problems emerge from here. In a multi-ethnic state like the ex-Austrian-Empire, the nationalists intended to build nation-states with substantial sovereignty inside of a state. Renner understood that the complicated strife between nations in Austria was thus characterized.The solution Renner raised converted Austria into a federation in which the wheels of national autonomous government and territorial autonomous government (‘twodimensional federation’) are turning. The national autonomous government is constituted by the personal principle. Free nationality-declaration of each person, registration to the nation ledger, formation of the national autonomous government as a subordinate agency of the federal government, and execution of national administration of education, welfare, and culture, these must be introduced. Renner's conception of national autonomy is based on the view of a nation as a personal community, and the view of freedom and autonomy=self-determination to be included in and secured by an upper organization or power.Renner's conception was contradictory to the fact of separation and independence of many nations after the First World War. But, the establishment of a nation-state did not bring the solution of national problems. The necessity for reexamination of Renner's conception is increasing today.
著者
Springer Rudolf 太田 仁樹
出版者
岡山大学経済学会
雑誌
岡山大学経済学会雑誌 (ISSN:03863069)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.38, no.1, pp.77-97, 2006-06

序説(第37巻第3号)第1篇問題(第37巻第3号)第2篇民族的理念の公準第1章民族的区分(第37巻第4号)第2章民族的理念の法的公準(本号)第13節個人の権利第14節民族全体第15節国家に対する民族の法的位置第16節民族的権利の内容第17節公準の概観第3篇秩序ある国家行政の公準(以下,次号)第4篇国家的公準と民族的公準の妥協第4篇民族的自治と国家連合の実現としての多民族=連邦国家付録