The English bourgeois Revolution is a long process begun with the Long Parliament in 1640 and was given a finishing touch by the so called Glorious Revolution. Owing to its conspicuous religous character, the first and decisive step in 1640-60 had long been mistaken for a purely religeous one. But thanks to the works of Dobb, Hill, Lavrovsky and Sapruikin, it is almost unnecessary to-day to add any explanation about the fact that the revolution of 1640-60 was the main part of the English bourgeois revolution.
However, some important questions seem to be remaining unsolved. How the development of capitalism in the classical form was possible in England on the basis of this premature and compromising bourgeois revolution, whereas the classical bourgeois revolution in France rather retarded the capitalist development there? In the history of thought, the Enlightenment as a typical bourgeois thought appeared in France under the ancien régime and disappeared amidst the bourgeois revolution by death of Condorcet, while the English Enlightenment was born from the pen of Hobbes amidst the revolution and developed into the classical political economy almost without interruption. This peculier English way of capitalist development in thought and society needs to be studied in detail. The revolution begun with the Scottish presbyterian movement against Charles I, was fought by the English Presbyterians assisted by the Independents and Levellers, and ended in compromise between the Royalists and Presbyterians. In short, it was fought on the level of the Presbyterians. In spite of this fact, thinkers of the English Enlightenment were more or less critical toward the Presbyterians. Examples are Hobbes, Fielding, Smith etc. The triangular relation among the revolutionary group (Independents, Levellers, etc.), the Presbyterians the thinkers of Enlightenment may be the central point of further analysis. Each of these three sections developed and changed its character through action and reaction. It might be possible to say the Enlightenment absorbed certain radical ideas of the first section while criticizing the second. The seemingly uniterrupted process of capitalist development in England contains a certain number of stages or elements distinct from each other. The present writer cannot keep from feeling that Hill's recent interpretation of the revolution as a process of resistance and triumph of the natural rulers is a postMarxian version of traditionalism.

View full abstract

This treatise, in short, beings with a description of the tendency of unification of the American Colonists of the British Empire and considers finally American Revolutionary Theory involving the complicated cirumstances of following affairs: various Acts of the British Government toward the American colonies, corresponding committees and the first and second Continental Congresses in American against these Acts, British policy and stationary troops, the entanglement of courses and situations of these affairs during the war, the international aspects of the war, the American patriots final victory and America's independence from its mother country, the British Empire, and the social and political changes in America after the Revolutionary War.
The value of historical studies lies not in the knowledge of the past it gives. It lies rather in the insight which it furnishes into the future. This treatise, from this point of view, shows that American belief in natural right, liberty, separation of Church and State, republican form of government, etc. have their origins in the deep roots that grew up from the time of the Revolutionary War.
American political scholarship like American statesmanship has been primarily problem-conscious rather than metaphysical and doctrinaire. The American Revolution was not a revolution of any principles of original philosophy or creative ideology. That is to say, there was no political theory in America. One of the characteristics of the American people at that time was to deal with current situations rather than to think in terms of abstract ideas. The American Revolution was based on such reasoning. Then we may call it a conservative revolution which was different from the French, Russian and English revolutions.
From the first, the American people developed their new country with hunting knives in an effort to live. In this, the pioneer spirit was born. And that pioneer spirit has become the distinguishing trait of pragmatism from the time of the American Revolution up to the present day. This treaties is a discussion of these affairs.

View full abstract

Recently many scholars of modern history emphasize that the crucial point in the formation of the modern world lies in the fact that it was the transition from agricultural society to industrial society. In other words, they approach the problem from the economic aspect. From their point of view, the process of industrialization or the development of capitalism is laid stress on. Consequently, industrial revolution is regarded as the central element for modernization, while middle-class revolution was merely one factor in this process, and that not necessarily required to experience. The importance of the latter has been more and more ignored. True, various countries in the 19th century got the impetus from capitalism which was internationally developed and sometimes, avoiding middleclass revolution, succeeded in achieving industrial revolution even at a higher speed than in France or England.
However, when we consider the problem of democracy, there is a definite difference between countries which experienced middle-class revolution and those which did not. In the former, capitalism and democracy were implanted at the same time, while in the latter, democracy was suppressed and autocracy was strengthened in proportion as capitalism grew. There, the more industrialized a society was, the more serious was the problem of democracy.
Thus, from the standpoint of democracy, the French Revolution must be referred to as having the unique significance. It was not only the dividing point between feudalism and capitalism, but also the emancipation of people from autocracy and the process of their independence. Moreover, it gave rise to the growth of the “mass” and the movement for democratization in other European countries. The reason why the French Revolution played this role in the history of democracy is in the fact that this revolution was carried out through the Democratie sociale, the autonomous movement of the petite bourgeoisie who supported the Montagnards. Capitalism was the natural result of the splitting into “capital” and “labor” of the petite bourgeoisie who were combined for the common aim of the abolition of feudalism.

View full abstract

The object of this article is to illustrate the particular process of dynamic development which the German liberalist movements showed during the Revolution 1848/49. It is as follows.
The intellectual liberals sought to realize their pre-March mission of drawing government and people together as the real agents of their ideals, were progressively isolated from both of these powers and were subsequently themselves torn apart into their three generic divisions as they fell into dependence upon divergent real interests or remained impotently suspended about them. The dissolution of intellectual liberalism under the solvent of conscious self-interest in its agents meant the beginning of the end for the philosophical approach to politics, and introduced the general reorientation toward the frank and direct appreciation of interests and power which the Revolution had shown to be decisive in German society and politics. Such fundamental reorientation led to a political positivism, which meant the intellectual decline of German liberalism, because it undermined the comprehensive appeal of the liberal political ethic and, in consequence, diminished the force of assault upon the prevailing state-system in Germany.

View full abstract

Hsin Hai Revolution was a conclusion of the democratic movement of the Chinese people which had kept on developing since the end of 19th century. Objectively speaking, the characteristics of the Revolution were anti-Imperialism and anti-Feudalism; that is to say, it was Bourgeois Democratic Revolution. The object of the Revolution lay in overthrowing Imperialistic Powers and Feudal forces as the then Chinese ruling class (Ching Ch'ao) which had been working in conspiracy with these great Powers. The revolutional forces consisted of laborers, peasants, petit bourgeois and bourgeois. Of course, the bourgeois played a leading part in bringing out this Revolution. The laboring class had not yet matured. And the farming populations were not under the proper guidance of the bourgeoisie. The Revolution, therefore, succeed in overthrowing Ching Ch'ao, but the problems of anti-Imperialism and anti-Feudalism remained unsettled. In short, it had not been able to uplift the main contradictions of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society since the Opium War in 1840.
The failure of the Revolution was caused by the fact that the enemy forces—Imperialistic and Feudal forces—were too powerful and the revolutional forces, compared with them, were too poor. There were many causes for the weakened revolutional forces, but the main cause lay in the lack of consciousness and selfconsciousness of the leaders in order to carry out farming revolution and to settle the anti-imperialistic issues. After all, the Revolution failed, but it has served as a living lesson to the Chinese revolutions henceforward.
The Neo-Democratic Revolution by Mao Tse-tung developed on the basis of this lesson, gave birth to New China. In conclusion, we can say that this Hsin Hai Revolution has brought forth New China.

View full abstract

Conventional present-day interpretations of the Meiji Restoration as the establishment of absolutism or as a bourgeois revolution do not adequately explain this historical event. As Professor Sakata Yoshio has pointed out, it was a product of a political revolutionary process which began as a movement to restore the Emperor (osei fukko) and led to the collapse of the autocracy of the Tokugawa Bakufu, and a revolutionary social and economic process, or Imperial Renovation (osei ishin), which developed out of the rich country-strong army (fukoku and kyohei) policy. Internal changes resulted from foreign pressures which precipitated a political movement to resist foreign pressure and to maintain Japan's independence. Although in time this was transformed into a social and economic revolution, this does not mean that the accidental condition of external pressure in the Meiji Restoration resolved the social and economic conflicts within the Tokugawa feudal system. In the transition from the osei fukko to the osei ishin revolutions an important part was played by the nationalism of lower-ranking samurai who had, as intelligentsia, acquired knowledge of foreign countries.
It is from this point of view that I have surveyed the history of the Meiji Restoration from the movement to destroy the dictatorship of the Tokugawa Bakufu, beginning in the first year of Tempo (1830) with the efforts of Tokugawa Nariaki of Mito han to reform the Bakufu system and ending in the tenth year of Meiji (1877) when social renovation was firmly established and the Satsuma han was completely destroyed.

View full abstract