文献一覧: 青木國彦 (著者)

1 0 0 0 OA ローザ・ルクセンブルクの「異論の自由」の意味と衝撃 ―1988年1月17日東独でのローザ・デモ事件に関連して―

著者: 青木國彦
出版者: ロシア・東欧学会
雑誌: ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2016, no.45, pp.156-169, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)
参考文献数: 75

This paper studies the significance of Rosa Luxemburg’s famous words “Freedom for people who think differently” in her manuscript “The Russian Revolution” (1918) as a background of the event of January 17, 1988 in East Berlin.On 17 January 1988, a group tried to join the “fighting demonstration in honor of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg” in East Berlin with their own banners. The banners carried Rosa Luxemburg’s words: “Freedom is always the freedom for people who think differently” etc. quoted from her manuscript.The MfS (East German security forces, so-called “Stasi”) arrested more than 100 people on the day. The Stasi named this operation “Troublemakers”. Hundreds, or thousands of people protested against this operation in churches every night. Western media reported the event every day. East German authorities showed some mysterious actions for the control of the event.As for the initiator of the event there have been often misunderstandings since then. There has been a controversy also on the manuscript for a long time.The president of the East German PEN Club H. Kamnitzer (he was also an IM (spy) of the Stasi) contributed an article to the party organ “Neues Deutschland” of January 28, 1988. He emphasized that the group had taken the quotation out of context for their banners and that Rosa Luxemburg canceled these words right before her death (January 15, 1919). This idea is a rehash.For the first time Clara Zetkin’s book (1922) affirmed that Rosa Luxemburg canceled the contents of the manuscript. During the same period, Georg Lukács criticized Rosa Luxemburg theoretically. Since then there has been a heated controversy on the manuscript “The Russian Revolution”.In this paper, after having explained the event briefly, I will show who was the real initiator of the event. Then I will examine the criticism of Rosa Luxemburg by Zetkin and Lukács, and I will show the influences of the event on the fate of East Germany.My main conclusions are as follows: 1) the initiator of the event of January 17, 1988 in East Berlin was not a group of human rights activists, but the applicants for exit from the GDR, especially the working group “GDR Nationality Law”, 2) Rosa Luxemburg did not cancel her theory about and belief in the freedom, 3) Lukács studied Rosa Luxemburg’s theory about the freedom academically and understood it very well, though he attacked her, 4) Rosa Luxemburg thought that “Freedom for people who think differently” was essential not only for the socialist revolution, but also for the social development in general, and 5) the event of January 17, 1988 became the beginning of the last stage of the exit movement.

2022-09-30 07:41:00
1 はてなブックマーク

1 0 0 0 OA 東独出国運動とハーシュマン理論

著者: 青木國彦
出版者: ロシア・東欧学会
雑誌: ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2006, no.35, pp.34-45, 2006 (Released:2011-01-31)
参考文献数: 47

This paper criticizes Hirschman's interpretation of “the events of the autumn of 1989” that is representative of the popular interpretation. According to the popular interpretation, the process started just by change of the Hungarian west border in May, 1989. Hirschman (1995) has written the same. Using only this framework he studied why and how the Exodus and the reform movement tied up in East Germany in the autumn of 1989. He did not recognize very important historical facts and showed some unsuitable judgments.The central point of the events of the autumn of 1989 in East Germany is the opening of the Berlin Wall, i.e., liberalization of emigration and foreign travel. It was the result of the “Ausreise” (this word means departure, but as an official East German word it refers to emigration) movement that had existed since 1975 and was growing quickly. The most important demands for reform by people who decided to stay in the country in the autumn of 1989 were also liberalization of foreign travel and election. Therefore, the departure movement and the reform movement had different interests as well as a common interest. The history and roles of the departure movement since 1975, which is the most important historical fact, is missing in Hirschman (1995) and in the popular interpretation.The departure movement was not simply an escape movement, but a very strong and aggressive dissident one, because it demanded from the government acceptance of the human right to leave the country, which could not exist without ban on free departure and free foreign travel (isolation of the East German people) . The victory of the movement (the wall opening) brought about a chain collapse of East European communist systems. That suggests the movement was one of the three major movements from the bottom which brought about the system collapse. The others were Polish solidarity and the independence movement in the Baltic States.Hirschman also made other misjudgments. He argued that there were no “voices” in East Germany and that the tie-up of the departure movement and reform groups, such as “new forum” (derived from groups for peace, human rights and environment) arose for the first time in the autumn of 1989, and that Christa Wolff and other in traparty artistic people were the main forces for “voice.” In addition, because he considered the events of the autumn of 1989 separately from the historical context, the events were drawn only as accidental outbreaks.If the events of the autumn of 1989 had been considered in Hirschman's framework, the concept of “voice in pursuit of exit” could have been utilized. Footnote 5 of Hirschman (1995) mentioned the “voice in pursuit of exit” which Scott (1986) discovered as one of the forms of the emancipation of Cuban slaves. Hirschman called it “a mixed, exit-cum-voice strategy.” He should have developed this concept for study in the East German case if he wanted to persist in his model of voice-exit.