Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky’s The Agrarian Question
Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky’s The Agrarian Question
复制标题
考茨基《土地问题》节选摘要
DOI：
10.1080/03085147600000001
复制
发表时间：
1976
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
J. Banaji
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Banaji
考茨基的《资本论》是马克思主义的经典著作。这本书于1899年首次出版，一年后出版了法文版。该书在最初的版本中分为两个部分：资本主义社会形态中农业的发展和社会民主党的土地政策。巴纳吉的摘要所依据的这本书的法文版仅包含《农业》两个部分中的第一部分。第二部分主要是，但不完全是，历史的兴趣;这是第一部分的书，从理论的角度来看，最需要注意的。考茨基在书中专门讨论的资本主义社会形态中的农业问题，既有政治意义，也有理论意义。这个问题在政治上是重要的，因为工人运动在其斗争中不断地面临着确定它对农民的地位和农业中资本主义发展的问题。在理论层面上，考茨基的著作可以看作是马克思的《资本论》所开辟的知识领域的延伸。《资本论》提出了一些问题，有些问题它解决了，有些问题它没有解决。考茨基的《土地问题》、卢森堡的《资本积累》和希法亭的《金融资本》，都可以看作是试图解决《资本论》提出但没有回答的问题。考茨基在书中提出了两个不同的问题：为什么资本主义的发展速度和形式不同于工业？为什么资本主义生产方式，尽管被认为是占统治地位的，却与前资本主义的社会生产关系共存;这种共存对社会形态有什么影响？资本主义土地所有制的定义基础及其形式，是分析农业资本主义发展的中心问题。这是因为农业是以土地为中心的，土地是一种生产要素，其数量不能增加，其质量因情况而异。马克思在《资本论》第三卷中，把这些特征与土地私有制结合起来，解释资本主义地租（绝对地租和级差地租）的存在。但是，关于地租的讨论，与分析资本主义农业的发展，并不直接相关。然而，有一个交叉点：这两种讨论都将土地所有权的形式置于中心地位。在马克思看来，土地私有制是资本主义绝对地租存在的条件，也是资本主义农业发展的障碍。不仅如此，土地私有制所采取的形式，也决定着资本主义在农业上的发展所采取的形式。马克思强调资本主义的发展是与各种所有制形式（包括土地上的国家所有制）相一致的，但是，就目前的目的而言，需要强调的是这个命题的含义：即资本主义在农业上的发展没有唯一的形式。资本主义在制造业中的发展也没有独特的形式。但有一个重要的区别：制造业者的生产资料，一般来说，是可以扩大规模再生产的，而土地，农业的主要生产资料，则不是。因此，土地所有制的形式及其政治存在条件，在分析农业资本主义的发展时，具有特别重要的意义。这种差别，也在一般意义上说明了资本主义在工业上的发展趋势和在农业上的发展趋势不同的原因。考茨基指出，在工业中，资本积累的过程不同于资本积累的过程。
Kautsky's Agrarfrage is a classic of Marxism. The book appeared first in 1899, and the French edition of the book appeared a year later. In its original edition, the book is divided into two parts: the development of agriculture in capitalist social formations and the Social-Democratic agrarian policy. The French edition of the book, on which Banaji has based his summary, contains just the first of two parts of the Agrarfrage. The second part is mainly, though not exclusively, of historical interest; and it is the first part of the book which from a theoretical view point demands most attention. The question of agriculture in capitalist social formations, to which Kautsky's book is devoted, is both of political and theoretical interest. The question is important politically because the worker's movement is in its struggles continually faced with the problem of defining its position towards the peasantry and the development of capitalism in agriculture. On the theoretical plane, Kautsky's book can be regarded as an extension of the domain of knowledge opened by Marx's Capital Capital posed problems, some of which it solved and some of which it did not. Kautsky's Agrarian Question, Luxembourg's Accumulation of Capital and Hilferding's Finance Capital can all be regarded as attempts to tackle the questions Capitul raised but left them unanswered. There are two different questions raised in Kautsky's book: Why does the development of capitalism proceed at a pace and take a form different from that of industry? Why does the capitalist mode of production, despite the dominance attributed to it, coexist with precapitalist social relations of productions; and what is the effect of this coexistence on the social formation?The basis on which capitalist property in land is defined and the form it takes is central to the analysis of development of capitalism in agriculture. The reason is that agriculture is centered on land-a factor of production whose quantity can not be increased and its quality varies from one instance to the next. Marx in Vol. 3 of Capital uses these characteristics in conjunction with the private ownership of land to explain the existence of capitalist ground rent (absolute and differential). But the discussion of rent is not directly pertinent to the analysis of the development of capitalist agriculture. However, there is a point of intersection: both the discussions assign a central role to the forms of property in land. For Marx private property in land is the condition of existence of absolute rent under capitalism and it is a barrier to the development of capitalist agriculture. Not only that, the form which private property in land takes governs the form which the development of capitalism takes in agriculture. Marx emphasised the fact that the development of capitalism is consistent with a variety of property forms (including state property in land); but for the present purpose what needs emphasis is the implication of this proposition: namely, there is no unique form of the development of capitalism in agriculture. There is also no unique form of the development of capitalism in manufacturing. But there is an important difference: the means of production of manufacturers are, in general, reproducible on an extended scale while land, the principal means of production in agriculture, is not. It is for this reason that forms of property in land and their political conditions of existence acquire a special importance in the analysis of the development of capitalism in agriculture. This difference also indicates, in a general sense, why the tendency of capitalist development in industry is different from that of agriculture. Kautsky points out that in industry the process of accumulation of capital is different from that of its …