The aim of this treatise is to develop the theory of land nationalization on the basis of the theory of land rent. Firstly, the modern form of landed property and land rent, that is the form in which property in land realized economically, are elucidated. Secondly, the logic of formation of the two normal forms of land rent is examined. And finally, the logic and form of disappearance of rent, are studied. About the theory of differential rent, two points are emphasized; Firstly, differential rent is a false social value "ein falscher sozialer wert" in substance which does not include labour in it and it is what society overpays for agricultural products at the cost of consumer. Secondly, on differential rent II, the surplusprofit arising from successive investment of capital flows into the pockets of the landowners, because the surplusprofit is fixed as land rent by property right of the land. Then, the more capital is invested in the land and the higher development is achieved in agriculture, the greater rents accrue per acre. Absolute land rent, which arises from the basis of lower capital composition of agriculture, comparing to that of the average social capital, is created from the landed property itself, which is opposed to capital as alien force and barrier. It would be, therefore, abolished by the elimination of the monopoly of landed property, i. e. the nationalization of land by the government of bourgeoisie. But, in that case, differential rent still remains as before and is levied by the government. Differential rent-a false social value, which is determined by market-value-as it asserts itself on the basis of capital production through competition, would be abolished through replacement of the capitalist mode of production, by a conscious and planned association which controls market price of the products of soil. But in that case, it retains differential earnings which would be invested on worse soil to improve, it. Thus, by equalizing the conditions of siols, the substantial basis of differential rent would be vanished and ultimately the economic basis of the monopoly of landed property would be eliminated.

抄録全体を表示

The nationalizatization of land was first proposed by Lenin at the period of the First Russian Revolution (1905-1907) as the "maximum" of bourgeois-democratic changes of the country, in perspective of the revolution to grow immediately to the socialistic stage under the hegemony of the proletaliat. Bolsheviki aimed at revolutionary destruction of the feudal land ownership, but among Bolsheviki leaders there existed two main solutions : the nationalization and the division of land. The "division of land" thesis as against the "nationalization" thesis was regarded as wrong (but not qad) in Russia of that time, for the very nature of the "nadel" (land belonging to the peasantry) was also medieval. The slogan of the nationalization of land was once again proposed in the Lenin's April Thesis in 1917. But the social conditions had largely changed: there appeared the various subjects of the socialist revolution in front, which had been brought forward by the estalishbment of monopoly capitalism accelerated by the patronage of the tsarist regime. Hence the nationalization of land, a long cherished desire of the Russian peasantry, could only be realized by the proletaliat in passing of the accomplishment of socialistic purposes. In this sense the nationalization of land was now regarded as the "first step" to socialism. The nationalization of land which was actually prescribed in the "decree on the land" issued on the next day of the Revolution, together with the provisions of equal utilization of land in responce to the wishes of peasants, finally abolished all kinds of survivals of the medieval land ownership. This measure was in its essence bourgeois one, but under the dictatorship of the proletaliat it could be used in the interest of socialism. However, the nationalization of land, different from that of industries, did not in itself give birth to socialistic relations, so until the management on land was also socialized through collectivism, excessive interference of the proletarian state into the utilization of land was apt to injure the initiatives of peasants. Therefore the land policies of the proletarian state during so-called "transition period" inevitablly had two conflicting elements : the admission and the check of the spontaneous development of the petit bourgeois or capitalistic relations on the nationalized land.

抄録全体を表示

The object of this paper is in clarifying the significance and the role played by agriculture of small landowner cultivation in the structure of the reproduction of the postwar capitalism of Japan. The land reform in postwar Japan has effected merely a transformation of the traditional tenancy into an owner cultivation system of farm land, its small scale of old days being left over unchanged. In order that the small farmer may cultivate his land, it is not necessary that the market price of his products should rise, either as high as the value or as high as the price of production. Nothing appears as an absolute limit for him, as a small capitalist and landowner, but the wages which he pays to himself, after deducting his actual costs. So long as the price of the product covers these wages, he will cultivate his land. The capitalist mode of agricultural production, however, is formed through appearance of the farm in which a category of profit comes into existence, due to its especialy high productive capacity, under the price which covers only the wages for family farms. The purchase and the concentration of the farm land are prerequisites for such a high productive capasity. But, these are impossible due to the dispersive property of the small scale farm and a rising of the price of the land being based on inflation. Therefore even now a predominance of small farmers marks the agricultultural structure in this country. With agricultural products being sold at the price lower than their value, the small farmers take up side-jobs to earn extra money. The agricultural structure under the "high pitched economic groth", therefore, became characterized by a large number of farm households getting engaged in some dusiness besides farming. Because the agriculture is the industry which produces the food, its productive power makes a wage regulating factor. The government, therefore, is trying to enlarge the scale of agriculture as an enterprise, but, in fact, not much has been acomplished so far. On the contrary, a remarkably large number of farm houses has come to take up side-jobs; 80% of them are now engaged in extra business. Even the heads or heirs of the farm houses began to take to side-jobs. There is no denying that farm houses, or even some whole villages have now turned out to be supply agencies for cheap industrial laborers in Japanese capitalism. Really, the petty scale of farming and the large number of farm household being engaged in some sort of extra jobs make the characteristic features of agriculture in the reorganized capitalism of present Japan, sending out required cheap wage laborers for the industrial development of the nation.

抄録全体を表示