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 | |
| 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 difficulties at the start-up of operations. As its manager J.H. Beyer, W.D. Haywood, and S.J. Rutgers left in order for the desti...nation, Kemerovo. But a difference of views and ways over the management arouse among them, so Beyer nearly broke away (and died suddenly), Haywood left there soon after Rutgers’ arrival and turned around on the opposite side, and Rutgers came to continue as sole manager. And by the Soviet governing bodies, especially the Gosplan, the scale reduction of the AIC-K project was requested and the making of a new contract was proposed in order to modify the first contract terms. Rutgers and other members of the Organization Committee (the provisional Managing Board) were obliged to conduct negotiations with the Gosplan, the Soviet of Labor and Defense (STO), etc. Three members of the American Organization Committee (AOC) also left New York for Russia and worked together. At this point over how to respond to the proposal, however, the opinions of members in both Committees were also divided and the internal opposition strengthened. That internal opposition created a stir and brought about the liquidation of both the Organization Committee and the AOC. The AIC-K concluded the new contract with the STO on 25 December 1922, achieved the transition from the joint management with the Russians to the single one on 1 February 1923, and re-started the official operations on 1 March 1923, which were to be the beginning of full-scale operations. What and how did the new contract change? What kind of problems did it cause? Here I will summarize and examine the major problems from new angles and interpretations which have been passed unnoticed up to now. 1. On the term “autonomous” The developing technical and social efficiency was the principle which the AIC-K aimed at establishing. In order to develop the highest possible efficiency, the AIC-K began by adapting itself to the current economic system, the NEP. First, the AIC-K established its headquarters in Moscow as the center of distribution for purchasing and selling purposes. It was also found necessary to define more clearly what is meant by the term “autonomous.” Many members of the AIC-K had interpreted “autonomous” as individual license and individual freedom of action in their conduct in industry and not as the autonomy of an organization within the framework of Russian institutions. As a result of this interpretation an effort was made to operate the industries of the AIC-K by mass meetings and determine questions of technique in the same manner, Therefore, recognizing that the AIC-K had not arrived at a condition of definite organization, it was deemed advisable to defer for the time being the election of a Managing Board and allow of its selection or appointment by the STO. From the start Rutgers aimed at the autonomy of an organization within Russian institutions. While the AIC-K was making an effort to enjoy the autonomy, it carried the following problems: (1) Due to the difference of opinions 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. Besides the AIC-K provisionally devolved the right to election on the STO; (2) It was criticized that the clauses of its statute, securing the advisory capacity, that is, all colonists’ freedom of advice and proposal, became invalid; (3) The mass meeting which had been regarded as an important form for securing the autonomy was criticized especially from the viewpoint of the technical efficiency of production. Those problems are examined in order: (1) The forming of the Managing Board and the devolving of the right to election The liquidation of the Organization Committee and the forming of the Managing Board was proposed by Shatov at the joint meeting of the Organization Committee and the AOC, adopted by a vote 3 against 2, and submitted to the STO. What weighs on my mind is that the proposer was a representative from the STO, Shatov, so that there was a possibility that the STO’s intention had been indicated at the back of the proposal. Nevertheless, it is supposed that Rutgers agreed with the proposal with his own intention. He (and Reese) sent the following letter to the STO on 30 October 1922: “The proposal is important because among the members of the present governing board there is a difference of opinions which will brake the work for the preparation of production.” That is, for Rutgers the efficiency of production was a question of the highest priority. Therefore, he was very anxious about the internal discord which might decrease the efficiency and, what is worse, interfere with the AIC-K’s cause of supporting the economic recovery of Soviet Russia. Indeed, the election of 3 members of the Managing Board was an interim measure so far as the colonists themselves could not afford to elect those members. But the AIC-K could not regain the right of election and came to be at the mercy of the Soviet government concerning the right of personnel management to the end. (2) The security of freedom of opinion, critique, etc. from the bottom up. On alterations 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.” But I argue against as follows: Indeed, the clause on the security of that freedom was too idealistic and became invalid, but it had been valid at least at the start. The following is an example: Through the advice of chemical engineers N. Sparks and others, the manager Rutgers switched a fundamental policy from producing coal first to manufacturing coke emphatically. Also “Rutgers had previously asked the workers at Kemerovo what they required to be done at Moscow and had asked for suggestions.” Kennell wrote the above-mentioned critical sentence only after five and a half months when she had arrived at 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). (3) Mass meeting vs. technical efficiency Soon after Rutgers arrived at Kemerovo, he raised the point at issue concerning the mass meeting － e.g., inefficiency that even the technical details had been discussed and resolved at the mass meeting － and endeavored to decide it by establishing “a certain discipline.” Though the endeavor aroused opposition among the IWW partisans, Rutgers criticized the mass meeting from the viewpoint of the technical efficiency of production. His argument was backed up by an article in nothing but a local organ of the IWW: “Workers’ Control,” Industrial Worker, 1 July 1922 (reprinted in Kuzbas, 20 September 1922), saying 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....., run it efficiently..... It might.....result in some sort of dictatorship of the technician, rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat, as far as production is concerned.” The very priority of technical efficiency made 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) The rejection of the “commercial trust” Rutgers did not strongly approve of the AIC-K’s change into the ordinary “commercial trust” (in other words, “a form of Co-operative with profit sharing”) under negotiations with the Soviet governing bodies, because the principle of the “Autonomous Colony” which Rutgers and others had established was that the Soviet state should guarantee its living conditions and the possibility of developing the state-owned enterprise. Nevertheless, owing to its adopting a wage system, its devolving of the right to election, etc., the AIC-K was certainly changing, compared with that of one year before. (2) On the evaluation of the “adaptation” L.Iu. Galkina has provided the following summary of the AIC-K, which concluded the new contract, aiming mainly at its adaptation to the NEP system, reduced the scale of its project, and achieved the single management: “The AIC-K lived through a period of ‘excitement, romantic, and adventure.’ The members of the AIC-K ‘started to work for restoration,’ intending to build ‘a New Pennsylvania’ in Kuzbas” (my italics). Galkina has regarded a way to the Russification of the Colony as a matter of course. Consequently she has failed to properly evaluate, so to speak, the labor pains of the Autonomous Colony and considered that the AIC-K “started to work” only after the conclusion of the new contract. She is not observant of seeking more the facts that the AIC-K was likely to deviate from the way of the Russification. However, the original cause of the Kuzbas project was to contribute to the restoration and development of the Russia economy, and since the AIC-K could not get any positive support from Soviet governing bodies, it would be inevitable for the AIC-K to carry out some institutional changes for the economic development. In practice there would be nothing but a choice. A dream of forming a new Labor State which Rutgers had had at the beginning (according to an expression of a colonist, “a new Republic of Labor”) vanished. There would be still one thing that the AIC-K aims at accelerating its economic development by increasing “the technical efficiency” of production, on the basis of “the autonomy” within the framework of its 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 | 2024.06.18 |