:The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and Modernist Traditions.(Twentieth Century Japan: The Emergence of a World Power, number 15.)
:The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and Modernist Traditions.(Twentieth Century Japan: The Emergence of a World Power, number 15.)
复制标题
：现代日本的社会科学：马克思主义和现代主义传统。（二十世纪的日本：世界强国的出现，第 15 期。）
DOI：
10.1086/ahr.110.5.1505
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stephen Vlastos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stephen Vlastos
朗尼·E卡莱尔的书在两个方面受到欢迎。首先，它生动地叙述了1945年至1960年代初日本工人运动的政治史。第二，本书将这段历史置于比较的视角，在详细介绍日本的章节中穿插介绍法国、意大利和德国的平行发展，以强调日本劳工的政治轨迹在很大程度上是由塑造这一时期欧洲劳工进程的全球力量决定的。“分工”指的是工人运动及其同盟政党内部的意识形态和组织分工，也指为“战争”动员起来的工人组织的“分工”，无论是阶级战争、工人运动中的权力斗争还是冷战中的偏袒。前两章分别讨论了1920年至1945年期间欧洲和日本的劳工情况，为本书的其余部分提供了宝贵的背景资料。卡莱尔指出，与法国、意大利和德国一样，日本劳工运动在20世纪20年代分裂为相互竞争的社会民主主义、共产主义和左翼社会主义阵营;与法国和意大利一样，日本左翼社会主义者在20世纪30年代试图建立一个抵抗法西斯主义的人民阵线。但正如他在后面章节中所述，法国和意大利战时抵抗运动的势头导致了“抵抗联盟”政府在第二次世界大战后不久就致力于将资本主义改造成社会主义，而日本的人民阵线则被帝国主义国家粉碎。尽管人民阵线的思想继续活跃着战后日本工人运动的复苏，并确实促进了1947年6月社会主义的片山哲内阁的崛起，但美国占领时期日益保守的政策和战前劳工分裂的迅速复苏排除了在日本建立一个可行的“抵抗联盟”的任何可能性;片山内阁只持续了八个月，是保守党统治模式的一个非常短暂的例外，贯穿于本书所涵盖的整个时期，甚至远远超出了本书所涵盖的时期。在这方面，工党的战后政治背景与德国的情况非常相似。正如欧洲的情况一样，冷战的加剧和经济稳定的进程（在日本由约瑟夫·道奇精心策划，就像他在德国所做的那样）使日本劳工运动在抵制资本主义复辟的程度上存在分歧，在这种背景下，卡莱尔对日本最大的劳工联合会的讨论，Sohyo（全国工会理事会，
Lonny E. Carlile’s book is welcome on two counts. First, it provides a lively narrative of the political history of the Japanese labor movement from 1945 to the early 1960s. Second, it puts that history into comparative perspective by interspersing detailed chapters on Japan with chapters on parallel developments in France, Italy, and Germany, to emphasize that the political trajectory of Japanese labor was largely determined by the same global forces that shaped the course of European labor in this period.“Divisions of labor” refers to ideological and organizational divisions within the labor movement and its allied political parties and also to “divisions” in the sense of labor organizations mobilized for “war,” be it class war, the struggle for power in the labor movement, or taking sides in the Cold War. The first two chapters, on European and Japanese labor from 1920 to 1945, respectively, serve as valuable background to the rest of the book. Carlile shows that, as in France, Italy, and Germany, the Japanese labor movement fragmented into rival social democratic, communist, and left-socialist camps in the 1920s, and that, again as in France and Italy, the Japanese leftsocialists tried to build a popular front to resist fascism in the 1930s. But as he relates in later chapters, whereas the momentum of the wartime resistance in France and Italy led to “resistance coalition” governments intent upon modifying capitalism in a socialist direction soon after World War II, the Japanese popular front was crushed by the imperial state. Although the idea of a popular front continued to animate the resurgent postwar Japanese labor movement and indeed facilitated the rise of the socialist Katayama Tetsu cabinet in June 1947, the increasingly conservative policies of the American Occupation and the rapid revival of prewar labor splits precluded any possibility of a viable “resistance coalition” in Japan; the Katayama cabinet, which lasted only eight months, was a very brief exception to the pattern of conservative party rule throughout, and well beyond, the period covered by this book. In this respect, labor’s postwar political context closely resembled the German case.As was true in Europe, the intensifying Cold War and the process of economic stabilization (orchestrated in Japan by Joseph Dodge, as he had done in Germany) kept the Japanese labor movement divided over how far to resist the restoration of capitalism and in this context, Carlile’s discussion of Japan’s biggest labor federation, Sohyo (National Council of Labor Unions,