It has been said that the landownership in Japan (Jinushi-sei) began to decline from the middle of Taisho era. Certainly, the bigger landowners began to invest to the enterprise outside the agriculture and the smaller landowners began to cultivate themselves from that time. It must be said, however, that those declining tendencies of the landownership appeared mainly in Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu. In Hokkaido and old colonies we can observe the different tendencies. In the agricultural history of Japan, we should not forget the facts that the capitalist-landownership appeared typically in Hokkaido and that the Jinushi-landownership in the mother country transmitted itself into the colonies. The capitalist-landowners mean the capitalists who became the landowners in order to strengthen their enterprise in the economic competition. In this capitalist-landowners, the capital and the landownership are united functionally as well as personally. The capitalist-landowners developed as the capitalists at the same time of their growth as the landowners. The landownership of these capitalist-landowners was the variant or the partial transformation of the semi-feudal landownership. The development of the capitalist-landownership did not mean the change of semi-feudal landownership into the modern type. As to the transmittance of the Jinushi-landownership from the mother country into the colonies, we have the following conclusions. From the middle of Taisho era, the Japanese landowners began to emigrate into the colonies at the face of the crisis of Jinushi-landownership in the mother country. Those emigrating landowners tried to rebuild and enforce the Jinushi-landownership there. At the same time, those who had obtained the land in the colonies before the beginning of the crisis began to settle their main basis in the colonies after the middle of Taisho era, in order to restore their economic losses in the mother country. Both of those emigrating Japanese landowners continued to sustain or enlarge their landownership till the 10th of Showa. If you try to analyse the Japanese Jinushi-landownership be for the second World War, you must study not only the landownership of the mother country but also those of Hokkaido and of old colonies. Certainly, the semi-feudal landownership, which was one of the basis of Tenno-sei, began to decline. However, we can firmly conclude that it continued to sustain itself till the Land Reform.

抄録全体を表示

Central Asia in USSR was conquered by Russia 100 years ago and became a cotton mono-culture colony of the Russian Empire. Prior to the October Revolution this region supplied about half of cotton demanded by Russian textile industry, but had not its own textile industry at all. Directly after the Revolution, cotton production in Central Asia extremely declined, but restored and exceeded at the early period of the 30s the level of 1913 by far. In 1932, it satisfied almost all demand of textile industry of Soviet Union. Such increase of cotton production is connected with reorganization of social structure in Central Asia from semi-feudalistic system to socialistic and development of national economy of USSR as a whole. In a word, it constructed important part of socialistic development of USSR. This reorganization was carried out in the following order ; the first land=water reform (anti-colonial reform), the second land=water reform (revolutional-democratic reform), development of agricultural cooperatives, and lastly massive collectivisation (socialistic reform). Soviet Central Asia was a region of irrigated agriculture of mono-culture. The semi-feudalistic landowners had much influence, and there existed opposition between native peasants and Russian immigrants. Certainly these conditions are rather exceptional in Russia, but are common to contemporary "under-developed" countries. So the experience of Central Asian non-capitalistic development is very significant in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. In the other hand, the collectivisation proves superiority of large-scale collective farm system, by the following of increase of agricultural production, especially cotton production.

抄録全体を表示

With respect to the relation of depreciation and replacement of fixed capital in simple reproduction, K. Marx solved this problem in his "Das Kapital". But the problem on expanded reproduction is not yet fully discussed. This article is devoted to the analysis of the some pending questions related to the movement of fixed capital in the condition of expanded reproduction of social gross capital. In expanded reproduction, depreciation (D) and replacement (R) of fixed capital is not equal in the amount, and D is inevitably greater than R. The difference of D and R, (D-R), is realised by the additional expenditure on fixed capital. This additional expenditure of (D-R) is requisite condition of normal expanded reproduction process. The money used for this additional expenditure must be mobilized from the depreciation funds that are free in this period. As a result of the realisation of (D-R), the amount of fixed capital in natural increase and the reproduction on expanded scale occures without capital accumulation, i, e., conversion of surplus value into capital. Owing to the peculiar nature of turnover of fixed capital, the total value of fixed capital has dual form in natura and money. The realisation of (D-R) which is achieved by the free depreciation funds brings about the value of fixed capital in natura and the decrease of the same value of fixed capital in money form. Therefore, total value of fixed capital remains unchanged after the realisation of (D-R). In respect of fixed capital, two conditions, D=R+(D-R) and (D-R)< the amount of the free depreciation funds in this period, are nothing but requsite coditions for the normal proceeding of expanded reproduction. The anarchic nature of capitalist reproduction process, however, converts the above two conditions into one for the abnormal proceeding of expanded reproduction.

抄録全体を表示