民主主義を拒否する資本主義

論文(Article)

This version is the first part of my theme which was induced by the essay of eminent Danish Professor Goran Therborn's 'The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy New Left Review, 103, 1977, to extend its treatment's lists, including Japan.　I have projected with another pivote: the grass-roots' view-points as well as the complete franchise which has been, de facto, his only cretrium, with considerations of attenuating or diluting, prima facie, in an ad hoc way, though. That's raison d'etre.　My theme, which was forming through such a channel, consists of four parts described as below, although main title is listed at the outset.　The Historical Relations between Democracy and Capitalism.　Preface　Part 1. Conversions of Bourgoisie Against the grass-roots Democracy.　Part 2. Capitalism in tandem with Democracy.　Part 3. Capitalism indispensable with Democracy.　Part 4. Global 'Empire' and the grass-roots Democratisation of Asia et al.　I, to begin with, try to explore the first part in this issue, in brief as follows.　(1) Robert Brenner's famous and excellent assertions, inter alia, of the tripartite system of agriculture after the collapse of English feudalism, which is commonly, ipso facto, acknowledged with other economists and historians, but whether or not the tripartite systems of agriculture are so much prevailed to be fade out the civil war, is disputable for his much exaggeration, Against whose arguments I attempt to make sure the confiscated crownlands' disposals, in which feudal forms of landholdings certainly remined of a great deal in variant dissolutions. Morover as well, the rank and file soldiers among the New Model Army, ad hoc, Levellers denounced that vast areas namely, over two-third of whole England were under uncultivated or wasted. Such complaints were full of among the magnitude of lower sort of class, which plentifully contains in Christopher Hill's par exellence book ”The World turned Upside Down”0. .At last, majority of magnitude have lost completely their universal franchise at all, depite their victorious contributions for transferance of sovereignty.　(2) Between the time from the complete lose of nation's franchise to the complete franchise recovery of 1928, I try to build two stages of models, which were saved here, along its illustrations about them, because of my following E.P.Thompson's works and essays in my own way, Two points to mention are what follows; one of them is that I critisized Professor Hobsbawm's assertion about the so called the 'dual revolution' in his invaluable book, one of brilliant and well known three books series of the Age,involving a too serious issue for discussing here. Another is that I could furnish the resolution which is the unconscious foundations of an inextricable combination between the Heaven and the Hell which was discovered by both great scholars Christopher Hill and late E.P.Thompson,with their own accademic contributions.　When I could resolve it farther, succeeding from their attainments in this essay, I feel very happy, because of the first successful analyse in accademic world.　(3) I would like to take up a serious problem lastly, concerning the serious delay of getting franchise by English people at the most latest time in Europe. Why English people got it the most latest time, even just before the Great Depression and the departure of the Gold Standard?

My investigations upon them, which nobody has ever tried, will bring light to the problems, I wish. I think that British foreign diplomacy changed radically after the Indian Mutiny in 1857-8, to fairness and pacifism along with equality, toward so called formal colonies. Eventually they gave an autonomy according to the extent of maturity. For instance, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were given the representative autonomy because of maturity, on the other hand, India and Hongkong were under Crown colonies because of prematurity, wheras people of motherland as well as colonial lands were given equally the same responsibilities and rights upon legal priniciples, under the balance of power globally, of cause. With a result of changing British diplomacy, rights and responsibilities were not readily given to any people under British Empire (later Commonwealth) because that each people tends to get the same rights easily on reciprocity principle favourably, This is the reason per se of delay for concession of the complete franchise. It means, obviously enough, owing to too large invasions globally in spite of a too small country to rule as Empire.(14 March 2003)