著者

青木 孝平

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.4, pp.25-36, 2005-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Communitarianism is a social philosophy that M.J.Sandel, A.Maclntire, Ch.Taylor and others have advocated in England and America since the end of 20th century. It has severely opposed liberalism which is the main current of contemporary normative theory argued by J.Rowls. The aim of this paper is to reexamine the socalled Uno theory of economics which seems to have no connection with communitarianism, and to reveal that Uno theory is not only the methodology of scientific economics but also the text of social philosophy. At first, we try to extract the proper normative theory from Uno theory and show that it has a character similar to communitarianism. Moreover, the deductive logic developed by Uno is totally different from the historical materialism by Marx and also from the ideal dialectic by Hegel, or rather similar to socialism as a categorical imperative proposed by the neo-Kantianism. Secondly, we investigate the substance of normative theory included in Uno theory. As a result, in discussions about the theories of value form and of the fetishism considered by Uno, we find the same argument as communitarian's criticism against "the unencumbered-self" or "the self-ownership" liberalism premised. In the social contract theory, the subject is considered to construct the social relations, but in Uno theory, the relations construct the subject. Lastly, we think about the abolition of "the commodification of labor-power" and "the law of value". Thus we conclude that the purpose of Uno' theory is not a realization of freedom, equality and individuality, but a recovery of social collaborated relations. We are sure it is not besides the mark to discover a communitarian normative theory in Uno's political economy.

著者

青木 孝平 辻 大和 川口 幸男

出版者

日本霊長類学会

雑誌

霊長類研究 (ISSN:09124047)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.30, no.1, pp.137-145, 2014-06-20 (Released:2014-08-02)

参考文献数

26

被引用文献数

1

---

Using long-term behavioral data recorded between1950 and 2010, we studied cases of change in the alpha individual and its social background in a captive troop of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) housed in Ueno Zoological Gardens, Tokyo, Japan. During this period, nine alpha males and four alpha females were recorded. Among the alpha males, three were juveniles. All alpha males except for one continued to keep their position until they died or were removed from the group. Alpha females, on the other hand, lost their position when they were in estrus/pregnant/nursing, after which time they continued to stay in the group. Unlike cases in free-ranging populations, captive male Japanese macaques are included in the social hierarchy of their natal group, and dominance relationship between males and females were unclear. Under such conditions, dominant females and their juveniles can become alpha individual when the former alpha disappears and/or there are no dominant male(s) present. Appearance of female/juvenile alpha individuals in the Ueno Zoo troop seems to be one of the bi-products of a captive environment and in order to keep social relationships of captive animals similar to those of free-ranging populations, artificial transfer (removal/introduction) of adult males should be considered.

著者

青木孝平著

出版者

社会評論社

巻号頁・発行日

2002

著者

青木 孝平

出版者

鈴鹿医療科学大学

雑誌

鈴鹿医療科学技術大学紀要 (ISSN:13416472)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.3, pp.151-165, 1996-03-30

---

What is "Modern land-ownership"? This problem has been disputed respectively in science of low, political economy and historical science since J. Lock and A. Smith's classical theories. For example, Takeyoshi Kawashima in Japan insists that to be bought and sold as commodity marks land-ownership in the civil revolution period. He also says it has absolute, ideal and private characters. On the other hand, Hiroshi Mizumoto and Yozo Watanabe insist that tenant-right is predominant over land-ownership in the industrial revolution period. They also say that the characteristics of modern land-ownership are to recognize the freedom to transfer and sublease tenant-right, to guarantee a long term of tenancy, and to repay the cost that a tenant spent to improve the land. The prototypes of these two land-ownership theories can be found in Karl Marx's texts. Marx in Capital Vol.3 estimated land-ownership as a permanent foundation of capitalist society. While Marx in Theory of Surplus Value considered land-ownership as a needless cancer in capitalist society. Therefore we attempt an analysis of the significance and defects of Marx's texts. and investigate the position that land-ownership takes in modern capitalist society.

著者

青木 孝平

出版者

鈴鹿医療科学大学

雑誌

鈴鹿医療科学技術大学紀要 (ISSN:13416472)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.3-18, 1997-03-30

---

We investigated critically the controversy about the so-called modern land-ownership in the last Research Reports N0.3,1996. The purpose of this following paper is to present our own positive theory about the relation between ownership and tenantship. Market economy and capital as the circulated form can't institute ownership on the land, while capitalist market economy requires the fact that the land is in the possession of someone else. And capitalist society which is a complete reproduction system transforms "possession" of the land as a fact into "property" agreed as a right. That is to say, firstly the ownership is recognized in turn from an excellent land to an inferior land by payment of the differential ground rent I, secondly the ownership on the most inferior land is recognized by payment of the differential ground rent II, and thirdly the ownership on all the land including that which nobody has cultivated yet is established by payment of the absolute rent. As a result, the land-ownership is given its own price, and has absolute, ideal and private characters like other commodities. Next, we present a theory about the jurisprudential structure of tenantship. In the capitalist agriculture, to guarantee a long term and to restrict cancelation of the contract are not necessarily the same as to protect tenantship. The cost a tenant spent to improve the land is not necessarily repaid by the owner. On the contrary, to transfer or sublease tenantship is the same as to set up the second-ownership on the land. Therefore we can conclude as follows : In modern capitalist society, tenantship doesn't change into a real right. It remains in the position subordinate to the land-ownership as a personal right.

著者

青木 孝平

出版者

早稲田大学法学会

雑誌

早稲田法学会誌 (ISSN:05111951)

巻号頁・発行日

no.30, pp.p171-203, 1979