暴力論 (ed. 2)
- 言語:
- 英語
- 翻訳:
- T. E. Hulme
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- 良好なテキスト
- 分量:
- 約 110,000 語 · 541 節
この作品を引用
- APAジョルジュ・ソレル. (n.d.). 暴力論 (ed. 2). SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/georges-sorel/reflections-on-violence
- MLAジョルジュ・ソレル. "暴力論 (ed. 2)." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/georges-sorel/reflections-on-violence.
- Chicagoジョルジュ・ソレル. 暴力論 (ed. 2). SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/georges-sorel/reflections-on-violence.
何についての本か
一九〇八年の書。ソレルはゼネストを戦術としてではなく「神話」として擁護する。人が思い描くとおりに実現する必要はなく、それでも人々を行動へ駆り立てる一つの全体的な像として、である。
背景と歴史
本文庫のうちでもっとも居心地の悪い文書の一つであり、なぜそうなのかは言っておくに値する。ソレルはマルクス主義から出て、それを理性主義に過ぎると見た。大衆を動かすのは計算ではなく全体的な像であり、革命的サンディカリスムは対立する力を交渉で手放さず保つべきだ、と説く。プロレタリアの「暴力」と国家の「力」とを区別し、議会制民主主義を対立を鎮めるための仕掛けとして侮った。これらの考えはサンディカリスムの左翼にも、イタリア・ファシズムにも取り上げられた。ソレル自身、晩年にはレーニンに共感を寄せている。思想史の実在する一片であるがゆえに本文庫にある。どこへ通じたかを承知した上で読むべき書だ。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
My dear Halevy — I should doubtless have left these studies buried in the bound volumes of a review if some friends, whose judgment I value, had not. thought that it would be a good thing to bring them before the notice of a wider public, as they serve to make better known one of the most singular social phenomena that history records. But it seemed to me that it would be necessary to give this public some additional explanations, since I cannot often expect to find judges as indulgent as you have been. When I published, in the Mouvement Socialiste, the articles which are now collected in this volume, I did not write with the intention of composing a book : I simply wrote down my reflections as they came into my mind. I knew that the subscribers to that review would have no difficulty in following me, since they were already famiHar with the theories, which for some years my friends and I had developed in its pages. But I am convinced that the readers of this book, on the contrary, will be very bewildered if I do not submit a kind of defence which will enable them to consider things from my own habitual point of view. In the course of our conversations, you have sometimes made remarks which fitted so well into the system of my own ideas that they often led me to investigate certain questions more thoroughly. I am sure that the reflections which I here submit to you, and which you have provoked, will be very useful to those who wish to read this book with profit. There are perhaps few studies in which the defects of my method of writing are more evident ; I have been frequently reproached for not respecting the rules of the art of writing, to which all our contemporaries submit, and for thus inconveniencing my readers by the disorder of my explanations. I have tried to render the text clearer by numerous corrections of detail, but I have not been able to make the disorder disappear.…