There are two interpretations about the agrarian problem of the seventeenth century England. One of them insists that the capitalistic leasehold farming had not yet developed so much at the Civil War. Eiichi Horie and his group prescribe in their "Studies of the English Revolution" (Igirisu Kakumei no Kenkyu, 1962) that the stage of the agricultural development of the peasant economy at that period was 'petit-bourgeois production' (sho-shohin seisan). But you should not imagine they deny the fact that the English Revolution was the political and economical turning-point of the English social formation from feudalism to capitalism. Why was the petit-bourgeois economy able to perform a Bourgeois Revolution? Because, they answer, not the peasant economy, but the seigniorial economy transformed itself into capitalist economy during the seventeenth century England. Akihiko Yoshioka, also, in his "Formation of the Landlord System" (Jinushi-Sei no Keisei, 1957) considered that the growth of the capitalistic leasehold farmers among the peasantry in the seventeenth century had been negligible. According to his interpretation, the evolution of the agrarian economy at that time should be destined as the transformation of 'the parasitic landlord' (kisei jinushi) to 'the cultivating landlord' (kosaku jinushi). The another interpretation admits the growth of the capitalistic leasehold farming among the peasantry in the second half of the sixteenth century. In other words, the practice of letting their lands (demesnes) to the capitalistic farmers grew considerably among the seigniorial landholders. This view may be considered as the orthodox theory which was built by R. H. Tawney in his famous "Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century". In this article, we made efforts to ascertain the Tawney's interpretation. We conclude that the so called tripartite division had already formed fairly in English Agriculture. And that the political feature and process of English Revolution cannot be explained without the growth of capitalistic leasehold farming.
This article is devoted to the analysis of the relation among the serfdom, the autocracy and the cotton industry as the characteristic structural relationship of pre-modern Russian society. The author intends to criticize the contemporary Soviet interpretation, according to which the rise of the cotton industry in the serfdom Russia was the most important process of the genesis of industrial capitalism in Russia. Russian cotton industry took its birth in the villages of central gubernias in the very beginning of 19th century. We see in the case of Ivanovo village, estate of Count Sheremetiev the growth and predominance of big calico-printing manufactures which was owned by serfs under special protection of their master, landlord. These manufactures served to landlord as a new source of money rent. From the introduction of the tariff of 1822, the cotton industry developed under the protection of the autocratic government. The spinning and printing enterprises owned by merchants in town and village employed serf labourers who left the native village for earning under the pressure of their masters. In the second half of 1840-s, Russian cotton spinning mills increased rapidly and achieved basically the self-sustenance of yarns. In the finishing process roller printing machines were introduced. The mechanization of work in big enterprises reduced the wage of serf labourers to the minimum and made it impossible for them to pay the money rent from their earning. This was one of conditions which determined the crisis of pre-modern Russian society.
This article is devoted to the examination of the basic idea developed in the report of A. Kosygin at the Central Committee's Meeting of the Soviet Communist Party in September 1965. It contains an attempt to search through such examination for correct method of approach to the theoretical problems of socialist economy. Intended reform of the system of management of economy in the Soviet Union is aimed at drastic expansion of economic autonomy of individual state enterprises and decisive strengthening of mechanism of economic stimulation. Distinctive feature of the new system may be found in the assignment of keystone position to index of profit and system of direct contract between enterprises. Reform is to be reinforced by the replacement of territorial structure of management of industry with a new structure based on branch principle and also by changes in price-making policy. With its over-all and deeply economic character reform marks most outstanding turning point in the history of planned economy in the Soviet Union since 1930's. A. Kosygin's report thus constitutes real starting-point in the process of realization of new management policy as set forth at the 20th Congress and further in the Programme of the Soviet Communist Party. On the basis of Programme's strategy of peaceful coexistence and economic competition report puts forward the problem of enhancing efficiency of production as the central problem faced by Soviet economy. This idea is supplemented by the thesis that development of productive power in socialist society necessarily leads to more and more complete application of mechanism of economic stimulation. Consequently, in its attempt to ensure the enhancement of efficiency of production and the growth of productive power of society announced reform mainly depends on economic stimulation and commodity-money relations, liberalizing to a considerable extent the use of labour power and means of production by enterprises. In this context possibility of infringement of necessary proportions of national economy and appearance of other negative tendencies incompatible with the essential nature of planned socialist economy is not excluded. The basic idea of reform is closely linked with the conception that socialist state property on means of production is something perfect and absolute, and that under the over-all control of socialist property commodity-value categories are no longer rudiments of old society inherited from capitalism. At the same time this conception lies at the bottom of the fundamental thought contained in the Programme and report that transition from socialism to communism has to be ensured above all by creating productive power of communism. Socialist property on means of production, however, in itself contains rudiments of old society. It does not purify commodity-value categories from such rudiments and itself needs purification. Historical meaning of intended reform should therefore be studied first of all from the view-point of development and reconstruction of production relations of socialism, and this on the scale of entire world socialist system as an organic part of the movement of contemporary world history from capitalism to socialism.