ソヴェトにおける差額地代と土地国有

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The nationalization of land which was started by the Soviet Government on its very first day aimed to provide a guarantee against restoration, and at the same time to abolish private ownership under the proletarian dictatorship and then transfer the landed property to the proletarian state. Therefore, the nationalization of land necessarily involved in its nature the whole process of the following developement: land in the ownership, first of the peasant farmers, second of all the farmers, and finally of the whole people;thus the ownership itself would be denied. Here lies the vital difference between the nationalization of land under socialism and that under capitalism. The chief aim of this treatise is to trace those controversies on differential rent conducted these forty years, and to examine the prospect of the sublation of differential rent, i. e. the emancipation of land in the various stages of the nationalization of land. The Ist period (in the latter half of the 1920's) Small-scale farming was dominant in this period. So the controversialists, both those who did not admit differential rent (K. Ostrovityanov and others) and those who admitted it (L. Lyuvimov and others), were common in holding this basically correet but abstract understanding with the fullscale development of collectivism, i. e. the establishment of the socialistic system in agriculture, individual labour would be directly socialized, the production of commodities would be vanished, and thus differential rent would also disappear. The 2nd period (after the Second World War, especially after 1958) Most controversialists had a basic recognition that even under socialism, the first stage of communism the production of commodities survived [the controversy on the value aud price under socialism]. The focus of the controversy was how to grasp the part where the state directly realizes the actually existing differential revenue between one kolkhoz and another. The surplus profit which is yielded on the natural basis of the various conditions of land and is fixed on the landowner as the surplus above average profit is the differential rent under capitalism (a false social value). But when a society is organized as a consciously planned union (this implies the higher stage of communism where the social character of labour would not be defined by the distribution in response to labour), differential rent would cease to exist. Thus the problem here is that under socialism as a stage of transition from capitalism to communism, i. e. under the co-ownership of the production means and the abolition of the exploitation system, differential rent of an essentially different nature from that under capitalism could not but persist. The dominant interpretation today in the U.S.S.R. finds this reason in the two types of ownership. This seems to reflect the existence of both the kolkhoz-type ownership resulted from the combination of isolated small-scale peasant production, and the monopoly of farming. And this also seems to set a limit. Whether or not differential rent could theoretically exist under the socialistic ownership by the whole people (labour cannot yet become the first demand in life) may remain as a point at issue. At the present stage this can be found in the theory on differential rent in sovkhoz.
政治経済学・経済史学会の論文
1968-04-20

ソヴェトにおける差額地代と土地国有

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク