Information Bulletin of the Union of National Economic Associations in Japan No. 3 (1983), pp. 35-37
(Masaharu TANAKA: Scanned and corrected by Aiko Ikeo in 1997)
The 46th annual meeting of the Society was held on 6th and 7th, November, 1982, at Toyo University in Tokyo. The theme of the symposium is the same as the 45th meeting, namely, "Advanced vs. underdeveloped countries as a problem in the history of economic thought". Three papers were read on this theme. Chairmen of the symposium were Saiichi MIYAZAKI (Tokyo Woman's Christian University) and Masaharu TANAKA (Konan University).
The first paper was read by Takashi UENO (Aizu Junior College) entitled, "Michel Chevalier's view on the new world - theory of economic policy of a French technocrat". The contents of this paper are as follows. Chevalier, an ex-Saint-Simonian, went to USA in 1833 as a member of research group of the system of transportation and wrote several observations on America. He was essentially a technocrat and, anxious to develop the low- level productive power of France and to follow up England and America. He observed American financial, manufacturing and transportation systems in their rising stage in 1830's. In contrast to his contemporary, A. de Tocqueville, who inquired into the American democracy and recommended it to the European public, Chevalier's interest in New World was concentrated on technology transfer especially of machines and transportation system. This seems to be one of reasons why Chevalier has been forgotten in the process of history while Tocqueville has not.
Chevalier took a special note of the significance of free labour in USA, especially in the East and West. He foresaw the American Civil War recognising the conflict between people for the free labour in the North and those who want to keep slavery and forced labour in the South and in Mexico. His views on the transportation system reflected what had already happened to the French transportation system which has already developed. He also made a defense of Napoleon III's attempts to conquer Mexico. His theory of development of capitalistic system was to be a defense of the capitalist development and the imperialistic colonial policy.
The second paper, "German agricultural policy of A.F. von Haxthausen", was read by Eiichi HIZEN (University of Tokyo). The life-long objective of Haxthausen was to re-establish a kingdom based on status to confront the influence of the French revolution. This objective in mind, he made local researches in every part of Prussia, and searched into the historical origin of the social condition of peasants. He found out three types of peasants, namely, 1st, system of German origin in North Western parts; 2nd, free system of German and Celtic origin in South Western parts: 3rd, dependent system of German, Celtic and Slavic origin in Eastern parts. He tried to transfer the 3rd type to the second.
Modern society is, according to Haxthausen, a society resulting from the dissolution of the community, and consisting of the rich with wealth and culture and the outcast. Both has a common feature of indifference to land and mother country. Germany was progressively modernized in 1840's, and natural status (nobility, citizen, peasant) was so broken down as not to be able to recover itself; therefore, he claimed further modernization should be prevented by creating artificial status (clergy, officer, bureaucrat) under the initiative of the king. This claim to re-establish nation-wide community was ignored in Germany, but accepted in Russia and became one of the ideological spring of the Russian emancipation of serfs.
The third paper, "Herzen on Russian Socialism", was read by Mitsuo NAGANAWA (Yokohama National University). Herzen's view on Russian socialism was formed through his observation on February revolution in 1848. His concept of "bourgeois" was different from that of Marx and a sort of ethical and moral one. He found the essential problem of the bourgeois society in the over-concentration of state power oppressing citizen's individuality and the prevalence of egoism pursuing self-interest. To overcome this problem was the main objective of his socialism. For him economic problem was only one phase of socialism. To revolutionize the pattern of thinking and logic was the chief problem.
Revolution in this sense is easier in those parts where the degenerating influence of the bourgeois culture is felt to a less degree. This is "the advantage of the underdeveloped". The future of Russia lies in village community. This community has many characteristics among which the habit of self-government in contrast to the centralized state-power, the absence of the concept of private property, the solidarity and mutual confidence among villagers, and the spirit of anti-power and anti-authority are specially noteworthy. On the other hand, Herzen admitted the absence of self-consciousness in the village community. Therefore his hope on the future of the Russian socialism turned to the cooperation of the community folk with the young intelligentsia educated by the West European intellectualism and rationalism.
Discussion followed. Keiko KURITA (Waseda University), Shinichi TAMURA (Hokusei Gakuen University) and Yoshio IMAI (Kogakuin University) were the commentators on these papers. The main points of discussion were the evaluation of the community and the view on nation-state by these thinkers.
Papers read in this annual meeting other than these on common theme were as follows:
Back to JSHET