{"created":"2023-05-15T15:16:26.200355+00:00","id":752,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"7ce82113-64bd-4cba-9e77-dd94c541e3eb"},"_deposit":{"created_by":3,"id":"752","owners":[3],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"752"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:otsuma.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000752","sets":["1:47:349"]},"author_link":["2027","2026","2028"],"item_1_alternative_title_5":{"attribute_name":"論文名よみ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_alternative_title":"レキシテキ ユイブツロン ト ブンギョウ ブンギョウ ロウドウ カンケイ セイサン カンケイ セツ ノ ケントウ"}]},"item_1_biblio_info_14":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2006","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicPageEnd":"173","bibliographicPageStart":"151","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"15","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"大妻女子大学紀要. 社会情報系, 社会情報学研究"},{"bibliographic_title":"Otsuma journal of social information studies","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_1_creator_6":{"attribute_name":"著者名(日)","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"松石, 勝彦"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"2026"}]}]},"item_1_description_1":{"attribute_name":"ページ属性","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"P(論文)","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_description_11":{"attribute_name":"抄録(日)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"マニュファクチュア時代の最後の経済学者スミスは『国富論』冒頭でピン作業場内の分業とそれの労働生産力上昇効果を説いたが,現代の自動車工場でも分業は大規模で行われている。他方,自動車産業,繊維工業,農業などの間に社会的分業も行われている。これらの分業を基軸にすえてブハーリンは『歴史的唯物論』を1921年に出版した。本書は,ソ連指導部の1員,コミンテルン議長という彼の地位と権威と相まって版を重ね,各国語に翻訳され,世界に大きなインパクトを与えた。日本では広島訳はベストセラーになった。しかし,純粋に理論的に見れば,第一に,彼の歴史的唯物論の根幹に社会的分業=生産関係=社会的均衡条件というワルラス均衡理論的な致命的欠陥がある。第二に,彼の工場内分業=労働関係および生産関係説については,資本家が労働市場で一人ひとりの労働者と雇用契約を結び,雇い入れ,分業の各環にはりつけるから,頂点に立つ資本家と部分労働者たちとの間の生産関係が成立するだけであり,労働者相互間の横の労働関係や生産関係は成立しない。第三に,ブハーリンの労働関係・生産関係の技術決定説は問題である。第四に,労働者相互の生産関係説への突然の階級関係の導入も問題である。このような二元論はプレハーノブに由来する。彼は生産関係には所有関係という狭い意味と分業のような広い意味があると言う。マルチノブはこの2元論を「社会的生産関係」と「技術的生産関係」とする。ルービンも工場内分業を生産関係とする。これらの見解は疑問である。わが国では高島善哉氏がブハーリンの分業=労働関係・生産関係説を取り入れ,ご自分の分業=生産力説と合わせて,労働関係(分業)が生産力でもあり且つ生産関係でもあるとし,当時大問題になっていた唯物史観の生産力(内容)と生産関係(形式)との統一命題に中間項として入れて,生産力→労働関係(分業)→生産関係とすれば,この統一が良く理解できると主張された。しかし,分業=労働関係,分業=生産関係,分業=生産力説がそれぞれ問題であり,より根本的には,氏ものちに「詭弁に類するまやかし」と言われるように,統一説そのものが「詭弁」「まやかし」である。","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_description_12":{"attribute_name":"抄録(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"A. Smith who was the last economist of the manufacture period explained the division of labour in a pin-making shop and its effects on rising labour productivity in the first chapter of his book The Wealth of Nations published in 1776. This division of labour is found in contemporary big factories such as automobile factories. Besides, there is the social division of labour between automobile industry, electrical appliances industry, farming industry and so on, too. These two kinds of divisions of labour were made the best use of by N.I. Bukharin's book Historical Materialism published in 1921, which was printed 5 times, translated into many languages of different countries and had a strong influence in the world, aided by his position and authority as one of the Soviet main political leaders and the chairman of Comintern. In Japan, the version translated by S. Hiroshima became a bestseller. Purely theoretically considered, firstly in his basis lies the fatal error that the social division of labour is a social equilibrium condition developed by L. Walras. Secondly, his idea that the division of labour in factories is work-relations and production-relations is wrong, since a capitalist hires labourers individually in the labour market and then in labour-process puts him into each ring of the division of labour, consequently there exists no cross relations between labourers, but only vertical relations between a top capitalist and labourers. Thirdly, Bukharin's technique determinism of work-relations and production-relations is incorrect. Fourthly, a sudden introduction of class relations into the above-mentioned production-relations is a question. This double ideas of production-relations originated from Plehanov who distinguished production-relations in a narrow sense meaning class-relations from production-relations in a wider sense meaning division of labourers. These two senses Martinov formulized as 'social production-relations' and 'technical production-relations'. But since production-relations are always social, this distinction is just meaningless. I.I. Rubin also insists that division of labour in factories are production-relations. This is not acceptable. In Japan, Takashima Zenya, a famous philosopher, adopting the above-stated notion that division of labour is 'work-relations' and adding his own idea that division of labour is a productive force, proposed to insert this double senses of division of labour as an intermediate to the logical transition from productive forces to production-relations, much advocated by Soviet philosophers as historical materialism formula at that time. So his revised formula would be productive forces→work-relations (division of labour)→production-relations. But as above-mentioned, division of labour is not work-relation, nor production-relations, nor productive forces. More fundamentally the original formula is really 'a deceptive similar to sophistry', as he puts it later.","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_full_name_7":{"attribute_name":"著者名よみ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"2027"}],"names":[{"name":"マツイシ, カツヒコ"}]}]},"item_1_full_name_8":{"attribute_name":"著者名(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"2028"}],"names":[{"name":"MATSUISHI, KATSUHIKO","nameLang":"en"}]}]},"item_1_source_id_13":{"attribute_name":"雑誌書誌ID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN10407566","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_1_text_10":{"attribute_name":"著者所属(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"en","subitem_text_value":"School of Social Information Studies, Otsuma Women's University"}]},"item_1_text_9":{"attribute_name":"著者所属(日)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_value":"大妻女子大学"}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2006-01-01"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"KJ00004766721.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"2.3 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_11","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"url":"https://otsuma.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/752/files/KJ00004766721.pdf"},"version_id":"05d0227d-a550-42f8-84b8-3e4703a49b7d"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"歴史的唯物論","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"分業","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"社会的分業","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"生産関係","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"社会的生産関係","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"技術的生産関係","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"労働関係","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"生産力","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"公式","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"中間項","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Historical Materialism","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Division of Labour","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Social Division of labour","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Production-relations","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Social Production-relations","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Technical Production-relations","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Work-relations","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Production Forces","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Formula","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Intermediate","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"歴史的唯物論と分業 : 分業=労働関係・生産関係説の検討","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"歴史的唯物論と分業 : 分業=労働関係・生産関係説の検討"},{"subitem_title":"Historical Materialism and Division of Labour : Division of Labour= Work-relations and Production-relations examined","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"1","owner":"3","path":["349"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2006-01-01"},"publish_date":"2006-01-01","publish_status":"0","recid":"752","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["歴史的唯物論と分業 : 分業=労働関係・生産関係説の検討"],"weko_creator_id":"3","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-05-15T16:41:32.714140+00:00"}