Structural reform theory (English: reforma strutturale) Italian

Japanese: 構造改革論 - こうぞうかいかくろん（英語表記）riforma strutturale イタリア語

A political line that has been theorized as a form of capitalism approaching socialism since the mid-20th century. In a broad sense, it means pursuing the maturation of the subjective conditions for a socialist revolution, as well as the creation of the objective conditions, through democratically reforming the entire social structure under the hegemony of monopoly capital. In a narrow sense, it means transforming the economic policies of monopolies into ones that are centered on the lives of the people, with the background of widespread mass struggle, partially reforming the economic structure within the framework of capitalism, and creating a situation in which a socialist revolution can be put on the agenda. It is also said to be a line for realizing a democratic plan that advocates the anti-monopoly democratic struggle. In principle, it is established by identifying the manifestation of the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society, namely the contradiction between the socialization of production and private ownership, within the entire social structure, combining the opportunity for socialization with the expansion of democracy, and viewing the deepening of the contradiction as a process of active intervention in the social structure by the subject of reform itself. Therefore, the theory of structural reform is one of the Marxist theories of revolution in that it has as its ultimate goal the acquisition of state power by forces centered on the working class, i.e., socialist revolution. However, compared to theories of revolution that seek the touchstone of revolution in the Soviet-style proletarian dictatorship and tend to contrast revolution with everyday struggles embodied in economic demand struggles, i.e., reforms, this theory of revolution emphasizes reforms under capitalism, aims to integrate anti-monopoly classes by making the mediation between reforms and revolution the subject matter, and emphasizes a peaceful transition to socialism. Although the emphasis on reforms may confine class struggle within the framework of capitalism and obscure the issue of state power, it has a positive meaning in that it gives everyday concreteness to class struggle, since it focuses on grasping the surface of the social contradictions brought about by monopoly rule, down to their three-dimensional structure and mechanism. At the same time, it is significant in that it links the development of democracy under monopoly capitalism to socialist revolution.

[Akio Takeuchi and Nobuo Ishii]

Historical location

The theory of structural reform first came to the forefront of history in 1956 in the Italian Road to Socialism, which was included in the Programmatic Manifesto adopted by the 8th Congress of the Italian Communist Party. The background to this was the experience of the Popular Front era, the establishment of the Spanish republic, the Italian anti-fascist War of National Liberation and the establishment of the Republic Constitution, which had a more progressive content than bourgeois democracy as a result of it, as well as the multi-layered contradictory structure of Italian society, including the North-South conflict, and the direct connection between the rule of monopoly capital, which accumulates these contradictions, and the difficult daily life of the people. In other words, on the one hand, there was the quantitative and qualitative development of the agents of change, not limited to the working class, and on the other hand, the contradictions under the current system could not be left unaddressed until the socialist revolution was achieved, and therefore partial reforms were urgently needed. The proposal of a "new democratic majority," the "historical compromise" that included even the Catholic masses, and the concept of the "organic unity of democracy and socialism" can also be understood from this point of view.

In Japan, in conjunction with the diversification of the international communist movement, such as criticism of Stalin, the Italian debate was introduced as a new revolutionary course for advanced capitalist countries, and the argument for structural reform began to be raised. Politically, the movement policy adopted by the Japan Socialist Party's extraordinary party convention in 1960 clearly set out structural reform. However, because it was a period of high economic growth and there was confusion over the evaluation of this, the argument for structural reform in Japan had a strong tendency to be internalized within the system, and the party itself ended up rejecting this line in the "Road to Socialism in Japan" adopted by the party convention in 1964. In Italy, the argument for structural reform became more sophisticated through the combination of the accumulation of unified actions in the labor union movement throughout the 1960s and the formation of new movement actors after the "Italian Hot Autumn" in 1969. In contrast, the argument for structural reform in Japan generated debate between political parties and remained at the level of policy discussion, and therefore could not become the central axis of social change theory.

[Akio Takeuchi and Nobuo Ishii]

Critical points

In addition to criticism from conservative currents that it denies parliamentary politics and is a cover-up for the formation of a popular front, the progressive camp criticized it, saying that (1) the emphasis on reform, which emphasizes the socialization of production, is in effect a denial of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, (2) linking democratic planning to state intervention in the economy is a mistake in locating the beginning of socialism in state monopoly capitalism itself, (3) the above creates the illusion that a gradual transition to socialism is possible without the overthrow of the ruling power by the working class, and (4) therefore, combined with the neglect of the struggle against foreign imperialism, the structural reform theory is nothing but modern revisionism that leads the people only to the struggle for reform and dissipates revolutionary energy. However, it can be said that many of the ideas and points raised by the structural reform theory were actually adopted and utilized in the line of the various forces that aimed for revolution in developed countries in the 1970s and in the strategy of Eurocommunism. In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the structural reform theory was not openly advocated. However, the policies of the Italian Left Democratic Party, which joined the government through the Olive Tree coalition, are seen as essentially a continuation of this line.

[Akio Takeuchi and Nobuo Ishii]

"Modern Imperialism and Structural Reform" by Sato Noboru (1961, Aoki Shoten)" ▽ "Modern Times and Capitalism" by Nagasu Kazuji (1965, Nippon Hyoronsha)" ▽ "Criticism of the 'Structural Reform Theory'" (1966, Japanese Communist Party Central Committee Publishing Department)" ▽ "Criticism of the Structural Reform Theory" by Yamamoto Fumimaru (1976, Aoki Shoten)" ▽ "The 'Olive Tree' Government Strategy" by Ushiro Fusao (1998, Omura Shoten)" ▽ "Eurocommunism" by Annie Kriegel et al. (Iwanami Shinsho)" ▽ "Parvus and the Revolution in Developed Countries" by Tanaka Yoshiaki (1989, Azusa Publishing)" ▽ "Selected Works of Togliatti, 3 volumes (1980, Godo Shuppan)" ▽ "The Great Transformation" by Ushiro Fusao (1991, Madosha)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

20世紀中葉以降の資本主義が社会主義に接近する一形態として理論化された政治路線。広義には、独占資本のヘゲモニー下にある社会構造全体を民主主義的に革新することを通じて、社会主義革命の主体的条件の成熟を、その客観的条件の創出とともに追求することを意味する。狭義には、独占の経済政策などを広範な大衆闘争を背景に国民生活本位のものへ転換させ、資本主義の枠内にある経済的構造を部分的に変革し、社会主義革命を日程に上らせうる状況をつくりだすことを意味する。反独占民主主義闘争を掲げる民主的計画の実現の路線ともいわれる。原理的には、資本主義社会の根本矛盾、すなわち、生産の社会化と私的所有との矛盾の発現形態を社会構造全体のうちに確認しつつ、社会化の契機を民主主義の拡大と結合し、矛盾の深化を変革主体自身の社会構造への積極的な介入過程としてとらえるところに成立する。したがって、構造改革論は、労働者階級を中心とする諸勢力による国家権力の獲得、つまり社会主義革命を究極目標とする点では、マルクス主義的な革命論の一つであるが、ソビエト型のプロレタリア独裁に革命の試金石を求め、革命と、経済的な要求闘争などに具体化される日常闘争、つまり改良とを対置させがちな革命論に比べると、資本主義のもとでの改良を重視し、改良と革命との媒介を主題化することを通じて、反独占の立場にたつ諸階層の統合を目ざし、社会主義への平和的移行を強調した革命論だといえる。改良重視という点は、階級闘争を資本主義の枠内に押しとどめたり、国家権力の問題をあいまいにしたりする可能性をもつとはいえ、独占の支配がもたらす社会的諸矛盾の表層を、その立体的構造とメカニズムにまで踏み込んでとらえることを焦点に据えるため、階級闘争に日常的具体性を与える点で、積極的な意味をもつ。同時に、独占資本主義のもとにおける民主主義発展を社会主義革命に連動させる点でも意義深い。

［竹内章郎・石井伸男］

歴史的位置

構造改革論が歴史の表舞台に登場したのは、1956年のイタリア共産党第8回大会が採択した「綱領的宣言要綱」に含まれる「社会主義へのイタリアの道」においてであるが、その背景には、人民戦線時代の経験やスペインにおける共和国家の樹立、イタリアの反ファッショ国民解放戦争とその成果としてのブルジョア民主主義を超える進歩的内容をもつ共和国憲法の成立のほか、南北対立をはじめとするイタリア社会の重層的矛盾構造、この矛盾を累積する独占資本の支配と国民の困難な日常生活とが直結している状況があった。つまり、一方に、労働者階級にとどまらない変革主体の量的・質的発展があり、他方に、現体制下での諸矛盾を社会主義革命達成まで放置しえず、それゆえ、部分的改良を切実なものとする状況があった。「新しい民主的多数派」の提起や、カトリック大衆までも含めた「歴史的妥協」、「民主主義と社会主義との有機的統一」といった構想も、こうした点から理解される。

　日本では、スターリン批判など国際共産主義運動の多様化と関連しながら、イタリアでの議論が先進資本主義国の新たな革命路線として紹介され、構造改革論が提起され始めたが、政治的には、1960年（昭和35）の日本社会党臨時党大会の採択した運動方針が、明確に構造改革を打ち出した。しかし、高度成長期であったことと、これの評価の混乱などから、日本の構造改革論は体制内化する傾向が強く、同党自身も、64年党大会が採択した「日本における社会主義への道」では、この路線を退けるに至った。また、イタリアにおいては、60年代を通じての労働組合運動における統一行動の蓄積と、69年の「イタリアの熱い秋」以降の新たな運動主体の形成との結合により、構造改革論の精緻(せいち)化が進んだのに比べると、日本の構造改革論は、政党間論争を生み、政策論レベルに終始したため、社会変革論の中軸にはなりえなかった。

［竹内章郎・石井伸男］

批判的論点

保守的潮流からの、議会政治を否定するものであり、人民戦線結成の隠蔽(いんぺい)であるという批判のほか、革新的陣営からは、(1)生産の社会化を強調する改良重視は、事実上、資本主義の根本矛盾の否定となる、(2)経済に対する国家の介入に民主的計画を結び付けることは、社会主義の開始を国家独占資本主義自体にみいだす誤りとなる、(3)以上のことは、労働者階級による支配権力の打倒なしに、なし崩し的な社会主義への移行が可能であるかのような幻想を生む、(4)したがって、外国帝国主義との闘争の軽視と相まって、構造改革論は、国民を改良闘争にのみ導き、革命的エネルギーを消散させる現代修正主義にほかならない、といった批判がなされた。しかし、構造改革論の提起した構想や論点の多くは、事実上、1970年代に先進国革命を目ざした諸勢力の路線やユーロコミュニズムの戦略のうちに取り入れられ、生かされてきたといえる。ソ連邦崩壊を経た90年代では、構造改革論は表だって主張されてはいない。しかし「オリーブの木」連合によって政権に参加したイタリア左翼民主党などの政策は、実質上この路線の継承であるともみられる。

［竹内章郎・石井伸男］

『佐藤昇著『現代帝国主義と構造改革』（1961・青木書店）』▽『長洲一二著『現代と資本主義』（1965・日本評論社）』▽『『「構造改革論」批判』（1966・日本共産党中央委員会出版部）』▽『山本二三丸著『構造改革論批判』（1976・青木書店）』▽『後房雄著『「オリーブの木」政権戦略』（1998・大村書店）』▽『アニー・クリーゲル他著『ユーロコミュニズム』（岩波新書）』▽『田中良明著『パルブスと先進国革命』（1989・梓出版社）』▽『『トリアッティ選集』全3巻（1980・合同出版）』▽『後房雄著『大転換』（1991・窓社）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Structural petrology

>>: Hong-qiang-hui; Hung-ch`iang-hui