The differentiation of peasantry in recent Japan, investigated at the point of 1960, is a process "very varied" and "uneven". Two facts are worthy of special notice. On the one side, though the ruin or proletarianization of bottom peasants is under process now, it is in the form that members of their families become resident part-time farmers, so that they cling to their extremely small-sized households, stopping halfway, not perfectly proletarianized, and staying precipitated at the bottom of rural community. On the other side, because the central line of differentiation is constantly shifting upward, the development as rich peasants is becoming more and more difficult for the top and middle strata of peasantry, many of them rather degrading to be poor peasants. The former fact that many of the bottom peasants are hired by non-agricultural branches as part-time farmers proves itself to be a process, not only of enlarging domestic market for monopolistic capitals, but of spreading in our rural community "the hidden form of the reserve army of unemployed," because it means the augmentation in the supply of labour forces among villagers. As such a differentiation goes on, part-time farmers engaged in subsidiary employment, necessarily come to compare their wage-level with that of urban proletarians. Still more, through the medium of this income from side jobs, such as wages, it makes the top and middle strata of peasantry incessantly and consciously watch the difference between their income from farming, or its part attributable to their labour, and the income-level of urban workers. Hereby, if we are to actualize the character of social classes in rural community correctly, it is indispensable to reexamine the ways of class determination. As for the determining factors of middle peasants, for example, we must take into consideration, for the broader viewpoint of national economy, the proportion between their income and the net earning of the urban wokers, or the labourers' wages of manufacturing industries in their districts, as well as narrower agricultural indexes. Thus, we get the calculation of class forces of rural community in the year 1960, concerning two districts, Tohoku and Kinki, respectively as follows ; Middle Peasants, 23.6% and 8.3%; Well-to-do Peasants, 2.7% and 0.4% (including Rich Peasants, 1.3% and 0.1%) ; Poor Peasants containing Rural Proletarians, 72.8% and 82%. Moreover, the percentage of this last half-proletarian poor peasantry is expected to increase hereafter. Corresponding to the above-mentioned development of the class structure, rural workers' unions have been organized actively since 1960-1961. It is necessary to recognize the significance of this movement as a form of the peasants' subjective countermeasure at the new-time point.

View full abstract

It is well known that Rosa Luxemburg contended the impossibility of realization of accumulated surplus-value in her scheme of reproduction on extended scale. This impossibility (disproportion), however, was due to her equal rate of accumulation in both departments in spite of progressively higher organic composition of capital (c>v), which necessarily results in a lower rate of accumulation in department II. Although it is provided by all the schemes of reproduction on extended scale that the accumulation in department I should determine and forego that of department II, she neglected this law. So it is that O.Bauer himself, unaware of this law, attempted in vain to testify the possibility of realization of accumulated surplus-value under the very same condition as Luxemburg set, and was obliged to transfer part of accumlated surplus-value from department I to department II, which made his scheme inconsistent as the rate of accumulation set in the beginning could not be maintained. Such a view of Luxemburg was a product of her critics on Marx' scheme that his scheme is inconsistent without the continually increasing effective demand. Surely herein is revealed a sort of under-consumptoin theory that in the scheme of reproduction consumption should be prepared for production. She found the origin of this theory in Sismondi, by way of whom indirectly she criticized Len in, pointing out that Sismondi's theory of reproduction rather contains more than the fallacy of Adam Smith's v+s dogma, to say, the exact law of reproduction that it is the income of the past year which must pay for the production of present year. Here she finds prototype of her own theory. But it is not the same conclusion itself that Lenin criticized as induced from above-mentioned dogma? Thus the possibility of accumulation was annulled, capitalism was no more able to develop itself by way of growing production of constant capitals ! There is no other contradiction inherent in capitalism than that of effective demand caused by under-consumption! On the other hand she tried, as her sub-title shows, to clarify the substance of imperialsm. But so long as it depended upon non-realization theory, she again fell into a decisive fallacy. Of course we must allow that she intended to make an analysis on the economic basis of world-wide revolution and proletarian internationalism on those days when an extention of the outlying fields of production brought about capitalistic relations as well as intensified class-struggles all over the world, in which we are so much interested in the light of contemporary crisis. Nevertheless, here too, her critical fallacy of non-realization theory led her to one-sided program of world-wide revolution and proletarian internationalism and made her ignore national problems. On this point lies a practical limit of her theory.

View full abstract