Mendeley出力
＜研究報告書＞
自治産業コロニー「クズバス」とリュトヘルス(3) : 操業準備から新契約締結後の再出発まで
| その他のタイトル | |
|---|---|
| 作成者 | |
| 本文言語 | |
| 出版者 | |
| 発行日 | |
| 最終更新日 | |
| 開始ページ | |
| 終了ページ | |
| 出版タイプ | |
| アクセス権 | |
| JaLC DOI | |
| 概要 | The Autonomous Industrial Colony “Kuzbas” (AIC-K) encountered various problems at the start of operations. At first, J.H. Beyer, W.D. Haywood, and S.J. Rutgers were each sent to Kemerovo in turn as i...ts director. But differences over management ideas and approaches arouse among them, so Beyer nearly broke away (and then suddenly passed away), Haywood left shortly after Rutgers’ arrival and turned around to the opposite side before the “New Contract” was signed, leaving Rutgers to continue undertaking as sole director. In addition, Soviet governing bodies, particularly the Gosplan, quickly proposed downsizing the AIC-K project and revising the terms of the original contract, forcing Rutgers and others members of the Organization Committee (the provisional Managing Board) to focus on negotiating these issues. Three members of the American Organization Committee (AOC) also left New York for Russia to assist in the negotiations. At this point over how to respond to the proposal, however, the opinions of members of both Committees were also divided and the internal conflict arose. The repercussions of this internal conflict spread, leading to the liquidation of both the Organization Committee and the AOC. The AIC-K signed the New Contract with the STO on 25 December 1922, and achieved the transition from the joint management with the Russians to the sole one on 1 February 1923. 1 March 1923 marked the official start date for the AIC-K, marking the start of full-scale operations. What changed with the New Contract, and how? What kind of problems arose? Below, I will discuss the key issues, presenting perspectives and new interpretations that have been overlooked in research history. 1. On the term “autonomous” Social and individual efficiency was the principle which the AIC-K aimed to establish. The first step in achieving this efficiency was to adapt to the real NEP system. First, the AIC-K established its headquarters in Moscow as the distribution center for buying and selling. It was also found necessary to define more clearly what was meant by the term “autonomous” (which was not specified in the original contract). Many colonists had interpreted “autonomy” as individual license and freedom of action in their actions in the industry rather than as organizational autonomy within the framework of Russian institutions. As a result of this interpretation, efforts were made to resolve the AIC-K’s operational and technical issues through mass meetings. Therefore, the Colony recognized that it had not yet reached a state of definite organization and postponed, for the time being, elections to the Managing Board, allowing the STO to select or nominate it. From the beginning Rutgers had aimed for “organizational autonomy within Russian institutions,” and the following problems arose in maintaining “autonomy” within the organization: (1) Due to the differences of opinion within the Organization Committee, that Committee of 14 members was discharged and the Managing Board of 3 (Rutgers, V.C. Shatov, and Th. Reese) was formed. Moreover, the AIC-K temporarily relinquished its right to vote on Managing Board to the STO; (2) The provisions of its statute, guaranteeing all colonists the “advisory capacity,” that is, the freedom to offer “advice and suggestions,” were criticized as being meaningless; (3) The mass meeting which was regarded as an important form of securing “autonomy” was criticized particularly from the perspective of the “technical efficiency” of production. I will discuss these three issues in turn. (1) Restructuring the Managing Board and relinquishing the right to vote The liquidation of the Organization Committee and the restructure of the Managing Board were proposed by Shatov at the joint meeting of the Organization Committee and AOC members, passed by a vote of 3 to 2, and submitted to the STO. What is concerning here is that the proposal was made by Shatov, a representative from the STO, and that the STO’s intentions were at work behind the scenes, which potentially undermined the independence of the AIC-K. Nevertheless, Rutgers agreed to it, but it was likely due to the following unique ideas: He (and Reese) sent the following letter to the STO dated 30 October 1922: “This proposal is important because in the current Managing Board there are differences of opinion which would put a brake on the work for the preparation of production.” In other words, the issue of production “efficiency” was his highest priority, so he would be very anxious about the internal conflict that might decrease the efficiency and, what was worse, hinder the AIC-K’s just cause of supporting the economic reconstruction of Soviet Russia. Indeed, the selection of 3 members of the Managing Board was intended as a temporary measure until the Colony could be clearly organized and the colonists could elect their own members. But, in reality, the measure (which also gave the STO the right to dismiss the Board members) increased their dependence on the Soviet Government. The AIC-K never regained its right to vote, and remained at the mercy of the Soviet Government’s personnel power until the very end (to be continued). (2) The security of freedom of opinion, criticism, etc. from “below” On the changes in the New Contract R.E. Kennelll argued, “Another clause practically takes the ‘autonomous’ out of ‘the AIC-K’ by specifying that the management board, responsible only the STO, is absolute dictator and the colonists have no voice in the administration of Kuzbas affairs.” However, one could counter this as follows: Indeed, the above-mentioned provisions on the security of that freedom may have been overly idealistic and later became meaningless, but they were effective, at least initially. An example of this is the following: Following advice from chemical engineers, including N. Sparks, director Rutgers shifted his focus from coal production to coke production. Furthermore, “Rutgers had previously asked the workers at Kemerovo what they required to be done at Moscow and had asked for suggestions [when negotiating a new contract].” Kennell wrote the above-mentioned critical report only five and a half months after arriving in Kemerovo. To tell the truth, “She evolved in her political views during the troubles of 1922 from an initial identification with the IWW partisans to an acceptance of the Rutgers reforms and the pragmatic Colony regime resulting from the new Agreement” (J.P. Morray). Given the subsequent changes in Kennell’s political stance, it is doubtful whether she would have continued to adhere to her early criticism. (3) Mass meeting vs. technical efficiency Soon after Rutgers arrived in Kemerovo, he raised the issues of the mass meeting (e.g., inefficiency that even the technical details had been discussed and resolved at the mass meeting) and sought to improve them by establishing “a certain discipline.” Although this attempt provoked opposition from IWW supporters, Rutgers criticized the mass meeting from the perspective of the “technical efficiency” of production, in other words, inevitability of industrial management by professional engineers. His argument was supported by an article in a local organ of the IWW: “Workers’ Control,” Industrial Worker, 1 July 1922 (reprinted in Kuzbas, 20 September 1922), stating that “Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as ‘Democratic Control of Industry,’ at least not in the sense of ‘Democratic Management’”; “The IWW plan is to organize each industry not only to fight the capitalist, ....., but to also run it efficiently, ..... That means a certain amount of subordination of individual whim to the will of expert. It might, it is possible to imagine, result in some sort of dictatorship of the technician, rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat, as far as production is concerned.” This policy of prioritizing “technical efficiency” also led Rutgers assert the following right: “We will not be able to comply with all paragraphs of law, particularly of the mining laws, if we are to introduce American methods. We take it for granted that our contract gives us the right to disregard certain formal provisions of minor laws if they conflict with good American methods and practice.” 2. On the AIC-K’s “adaptation” to the NEP system (1) Rejection of the “commercial trust” In negotiations with Soviet governing bodies, Rutgers strongly refused to accept the idea of converting the AIC-K into an ordinary Russian “commercial trust” (in other words, “a form of Co-operative with profit sharing”), because the principle of the “Autonomous Colony” founded by Rutgers and others was that the Soviet State should guarantee living conditions of colonists and the development potential of state-owned enterprise. However, with the introduction of a wage system, the relinquishing of its right to vote, etc., the AIC-K itself was also beginning to change considerably from the year before. (2) On the evaluation of “adaptation” L.Iu. Galkina has summarized the AIC-K’s history that downsized its project, while simultaneously achieving centralized management, on the basis of the New Contrast whose main purpose was to “adapt” to the NEP system as follows: “The AIC-K lived through a period of ‘excitement, romance, and adventure.’ The members of the AIC-K ‘started to work for reconstruction,’ while intending to build a ‘New Pennsylvania’ in Kuzbas” (my italics). As mentioned in Part 1, for Galkina the “Russification of the Colony” process is taken for granted. Therefore, Galkina has failed to properly appreciate the so-called “birth pains” of the “Autonomous Colony” and, instead, considered that the AIC-K “started to work” only after the conclusion of the New Contract. Galkina lacks the attention to detail required to investigate historical facts that do not follow this “Russification” trend. However, since the original purpose of the Kuzbas project was to contribute to the reconstruction and development of the Russian economy, and since the AIC-K was unable to receive active support from Soviet governing bodies, Rutgers had no choice but to make some institutional changes in line with economic development under the NEP. In fact, that was probably the only option for the AIC-K’s economic development. Rutgers’ original dream of forming a new Labor State (in the words of a colonist, “a new Republic of Labor”) was gone and all that remained was how to aim at accelerating its economic development by increasing the technical “efficiency” of production as much as possible, on the basis of “autonomy” within the AIC-K organization.続きを見る |
| 目次 | はじめに 第1章 操業準備から開始へ 第2章 新契約に向けての交渉 第3章 締結された新契約 第4章 締結後の再出発 おわりに |
詳細
| レコードID | |
|---|---|
| 主題 | |
| 登録日 | 2024.06.18 |
| 更新日 | 2025.09.08 |