It might be said that problem of "socialist industrialization" in the history of the world is not quite clearly solved theoretically, though this problem is getting more and more urgent meanings in the present day world. Where does "socialist industrialization" find its own place in the historico-theoretical process of the modern world, starting from pre-monopoly capitalism through monopoly capitalism to socialism? Key to solution of the problem lies in the departure from every schematic way of thinking. "Socialist industrialization" has a close connection with uneven development of imperialism that is monopoly capiatalism. Under the law of uneven economic and political development of imperialism, socialism was first victorious in the backward and subjective imperialistic Russia. This accounts for the specially complicated tasks that were to be solved in the "transition period" of Soviet socialism; to overcome the backward and subjective structure of the economy and to prepare and expand material and technical base of socialism. It was "socialist industrialization" that could solve these tasks fundamentally. Only depending on a certain (however unsatisfactory) achievement of "socialist industrialization" could also be done "socialist transformation of agriculture". In this sense, "socialist industrialization" must be distinguished from mere "industrialization" as modernisation theory takes it. Looking from this point of view at the "socialist industrialization" of the USSR, it might be said that her experiences have not fully been theorized after concrete analyses of the historical process of "socialist industrialization". This implies that her experiences have not been so studied as to distinguish their universal meaning from their specific meaning. This article tries to analize theoretically from viewpoint of industry (especially that of indusrial fixed capital) the economic process of 1924-1925 of the USSR when she was on the eve of embarking in the "socialist industrialization". A critical study is made of the theory of E. Probrazhenski, one of chief leaders of left communists at that time. In this connection, analysis shows that the policy of "socialist industrialization" could be put forth under a certain condition of the "transition period" of Soviet economy.

抄録全体を表示

Japanese agriculture under the landownership in Japan (Jinushi-sei) developed rapidly its commodity production since the end of Meiji-period. This was based on the growth of the productive capacity in agiculture and on the progress of capitalism. H. Kurihara and many others proved that the outburst of Kosaku-sogi since the latter half of Taisho-period based on the enlargement of the commodity production in agriculture. This was illustrated by the following research in various districts; chief leaders in the peasantry movement were the upper class of Kosaku-no (half-dependent farmers) that had the outstanding characteristics of the commodity producer in that stage. In order to confirm these basic facts, in this report, I tried to analyse "Sanjogome-jiken" in Niigata Prefecture which had a decisive effects on the Kosaku-sogi after that. Moreover in this report, I verified the following facts. (I) This affair uprised in Taisho-period and spread over the districts, involving most of peasants. (2) The strength of alienation of large landlord, which was led by Senchobu-Jinushi, delayed the settlement of that affair. In that while, tenants unity got loose, and released in Showa-period. (3) Commodity-producing tenants, like "Hanmai-konkyu (Rice-buyer)" tenants, were exploited by landlords at high-rate "Kosakuryo(Rent)". The first was consisted of the upper class of Kosaku-no and Jikosaku-no. The latter was consisted of the lower class of Kosaku-no. But concerning the way of reproduction there was a great difference between them. Behind the peasants' disruption in this affair, there was the dissolution into two stratum-types of "Kosaku-no" So, in order to find the reason why Kosaku-sogi in the range of the village changed its character from Taisho-period, we must analyse the changes in Kosaku strata as well as the pressure by the authority and the disruption of the peasantry union.

抄録全体を表示

How are prices of production (costprice+average profit) formed? What is the mechanisn of competition of capitals by which these prices are formed? This problem is of a great significance, since it pvovides a very important key to the solution of not only economic crises, but also so-called 'Transformation Problem' and monopoly prices. Karl Marx's 'Capital', vol. III, chap. 10 mainly deals with this problem. Yet, it has many points which we cannot clearify. For one thing, why does it chiefly observe market-values and market-prices, though it was originally meant to discuss prices of production? Capitals, always seeking higher profits, compete with each other and move around among different spheres of producton. If they yield only lower rate of profit in one sphere where the organic composition of capitals is originally higher, they will get out of it and blow into another where the composition is originally lower, hence higher rate of profit. This kind of competition of capitals taking place among various spheres of production changes in each sphere the amount of supply and consequently, if demand remains unchanged, the ratio of supply to demand. Under this ratio changed, how can the prices of production be formed? This problem is, indeed, nothing but a formation of prices through competition within one single sphere which was fully analysed in the chapter above-quoted. Competetion of capitals among different spheres influences only the ratio of supply to demand in each sphere through incessant transfer of capitals, but this is all. It leaves the problem of formation of prices to the competition taking place within one single sphere. This kind of competition is three-sided ; competition among sellers (producers), among buyers, and among the two. Under a certain ratio of supply to demand, these three sides of competition, cooperating together, achieve one and same market-value out of various different individual values which are produced under different conditions of production. Now, competition of capitals in different spheres modifies that old ratio. So the three sides of competition in each single sphere change. In the sphere where the rate of profit was originally lower, sellers' competition gets less tense with the outflow of capitals from this sphere, and buyers' competition gets hotter, and the competition between sellers and buyers goes in favor of the former. In the sphere where the rate of profit was originally higher, with the flow of capitals into this sphere, things go reversely. All this process of competition in a single sphere will result in the formation of prices of production in every sphere. Thus, the principle of market-value decision through competition within a single sphere provides the basis on which the prices of production are formed through competition among different spheres.

抄録全体を表示