すごい本です。新書で400ページ弱。それだけで「買ってもいいかな」と思ってしまいました。(^_^;)
結構売れているようですね。この本が売れるということは、日本もまだ捨てたもんじゃないかも知れません。教授（坂本龍一）も推薦しています（私は、40年来の教授のファンです）。
著者はMEGAの編纂に携わっているとのこと、素晴らしいです。私も悪筆ではマルクスに負けませんが、自分でも読めない文書を解読していく（ソ連時代は暗号解読の専門化が携わっていたそうな。今ならディープラーニングでしょうか。）のは大変ですね。MEGAの日本語版は出ないのでしょうか。出ないでしょうね。出ても一冊数十万とか。昔の全集（Werke）はdietz版も大月版も労働者が買える値段でした。ところが、MEGAは原書も高いです。それで後期マルクスを知ることができるのは特権階級ですよね。この本でも、著者はMEGAから引用したい文章は有ったでしょうが、WERKEからの引用で済ませています（「草稿集」の照会はあります）。逆に言うとWERKEでも「マルクスのエコロジー」はわかるし、そういう研究もあります。「南北問題」は長い歴史があるし、環境問題ははからずも（？）世界的認知となっているし、「ザスーリチ宛の手紙」も「ゴータ綱領批判」も様々に研究されてきました。＜コモン＞はネグリ・ハートが中心概念として取り上げているし、ハーベイやグレーバーもそれぞれの立場で発言・著述を行っています。この本が素晴らしいのはそれらを後期マルクスの視点から再構築しているところです。そして、同時にそれらと同じ問題点をはらんでいると思います。
本書の内容は、視点もいいし、そのとおりだと思います。今、そして昨日も、明日もアクション（行動・実践）をするときだし、「戻れない時点（Point of no return）」（だった）かもしれません。誰も「昨日」や「明日」でアクションをすることはできません。いつ行動するの？今でしょ、ということです。では、どうすれば3.5%（社会を変えるための人数）になれるのでしょうか。私は半世紀、そのきっかけを探してきました。情けない話です。震災も9.11もそのきっかけにはなりませんでした（まだわかりませんが）。新型コロナウィルスもきっかけにはなりそうもありません。「危機便乗資本主義」で、私たちは「危機」に慣れっこになってしまっています。オオカミ少年の話ですね。多くの人が必死に生きながら生活は良くならないどころか悪くなる一方で、明日をも知れない状況なのにSNSは（マスコミ等も）現政権に対する批判に満ちているだけです。現政権を認める人とお互いに不満を投げあってガス抜きをした気になっているように思われます。その根本問題を見事に描いている点で本書は素晴らしいと思います。それらは半世紀前ならば多くの若者や識者に共有されていたものですが。それが著者のような若い（？）世代につながっていることは嬉しい限りです。
まず、表題です。人新生（ひとしんせい）という今話題の（？）言葉ですが、定義が固まっていないので、著者の見解を明確にするべきです。まあ、どのように定義しても本書の内容に影響はない、というか内容が「人新世」の説明だとも思いますが。（私はつい「新人類」と読んでしまいます。古いですね。著者は知らないかも。）
「資本論」というのは後期マルクスから捉え直すという意思表示というのはいいです。ただ、どうしてマルクスが言っていないと駄目なんでしょうか。その必要があるのでしょうか。私もよくやりますが、マルクスがこう言っているといって一文を持ってくる。マルクスになければ、ニーチェとかハイデッガーとか西田幾多郎とか、アリストテレスやプラトンを持ち出すこともあります(^_^;)。権威主義ですよね。マルクスを持ち出すことでマルクスを知っている人（読んでいるとは限らないけど）に受け入れられやすいですよね。「私はこう思う」というのとはぜんぜん違う。で、実際読む人はそれに惹きつけられるのではないでしょうか。（逆に、マルクスの名前を出さないと「マルクスの盗用だ」と言われてしまうけど。（笑））
私が言う問題点とは、まさにそこにあります。なぜ「権威主義」が成立するのか。権威主義が悪いということではなく（私たちの思考は過去の遺産を受け継いだものにほかなりませんから。それも本・文字になったものです。）、それが必然であるということです。文字がなければプラトンもアリストテレスも・・・マルクスもありません。それはおわかりいただけると思います。著者はその文字（マルクスの遺稿）と格闘しているわけですし、この「本」も「文字」です（電子書籍版もあります）。その文字が「国家」を生み出しました。もともと、文字は商業で使われたと言われています。そして、私はそこ（文字が使われたところ）は共同体の外側だと思っています。共同体と共同体の「あいだの空間」です。マルクスが言うように(^_^;)市場は「共同体の果てるところ、共同体と共同体の間」で発生するのです。民主主義もそこで発生します（グレーバー）。それらを国家は内に取り込み、あたかも自分のもののようにします。それ自体が共同体の破壊を引き起こすのは当然のことです。共同体にとっては異質なもの、共同体の論理とは異なるものだからです。文字は言葉を客体化するものですが、それが主体と客体を創出し、自己と他者、人間と自然の対立を生み出します。客体化（敵対化と言ってもいい）が所有の必要条件です。それは抽象化であり、数量化でもあります。商業（市場）を可能にするものですね。自己喪失としての自己外化（疎外）もそこから発生します。ルサンチマンもニヒリズムもそこから発生します。使用価値と価値との対立もそこにありますよね。技術（τεχνη）と芸術（ars）も。それを考えないと「救い」は見えてこないと思います。
では、どうすればいいのでしょうか。一度文字を知ってしまうとそれから逃れることはほぼ不可能です。脱資本主義が資本主義以前（未開、野蛮状態？）ではないように。「自然に帰れ」ではないけど、文字文化から「個別に」逃れる試みは様々なされてきました。逆説的ですが、それらも「文字」にならなければ伝わることがないのです。電話、テレビ、映画、写真、インターネット・・・水と空気にとって変わりそうな(^_^;)電力、それらは文字文化がもたらしたものです。それらを捨てることができるのなら、それでいいのですが、それはほぼ不可能ですよね（震災・天災等で強制的にそのような状況になることはありますが、みんな元の生活に戻ろうとします。「せっかくだからそのままでいなさい」とは言えません）。「持続可能な経済発展」などありませんし、「資本主義内での脱成長」もありえません。それは本書に詳しく書かれています。「贅沢な社会」をめざすのもそのとおりです。「真の豊かさ」に気づくことが必要です。1990年以前の東欧、ロシアが「贅沢な社会」とは言い切れませんが、ある意味でそうだったのではないかと思います。でも、彼らはそれを単に捨てて、「物に溢れた貧困の豊かさ」を求めました。因みにスターリン主義も毛沢東主義も文字文化から発生しています。それは、文化大革命のような文字の否定につながることもありますが。ファシズムを認めるのではありません。それが文字文化の結果であることを認識してそれを逆に利用することしかないのです。文字文化による文字の否定です。肯定的に否定することです。マルクスの弁証法ですね。ファシズムは文字を否定的に否定しました（「否定の否定は否定である」というアドルノは間違っていると思います）。その逆、というか別の段階に移行することです。「昇華」です。具体的な方法は実は私にはわかりません。多分、個人個人（これも文字文化が創ったもの）が異なっているように、その方法も千差万別なんじゃないか、と思うだけです。マルクスはその視点から読まなければなりません。マルクスは「資本論」で資本主義を見事に描き出しました。それを超える経済学（？）は見たことがありません。でも、資本論は資本主義を肯定するために書かれたものではありません。文字による文字の否定の一手段だと思うのです。
（資本論（第一巻）で価値形態論や交換過程論に割かれているページは全体から見ればほんの一部です。マルクスの没後、マルクス経済学の論争はその大きな部分が価値論、価値形態論、交換過程論、貨幣論に費やされたように思います。私も、「こんなことになるのなら、もっと詳しく書いてくれればよかったのに」と思いました。でも、マルクスにとっては労働日などのドキュメントの部分が読んでほしかったところです。クーゲルマン博士あての手紙。それは、単に労働者にはわからんだろうという諦めのキモチだったのでしょうか。）
文字を否定した哲学者を知りません。それはそうですね。彼らの殆どは文字を書くことが生きがいですから。それを否定することは自己の行為を否定することになります。哲学だけでなく、経済学も、社会学も、学問と言われるものの99.999%が文字を書くことに否定的ではありません（一部古代ギリシャの文献・書くことを肯定した人の本の中に文字を書かなかった哲学者のことが「否定的に」書かれていたりします）。文字に否定的な言語学者が2000年前後に現れていますが、「文字を覚えた人、文字文化で育った人がその文化から逃れることはできない」といって最後は逃げてしまいます（私もそう逃げようと思っています（笑））。そして、言うのです。「あなたが気づかなければならないのだ」と。この本の姿勢も同じなんじゃないでしょうか。
問題は、個人がどう（価値）判断し、どう行動化するか、です。でも、それは強制されるものであってはいけません。この本のように判断の材料となる情報はもっと提示されるべきだと思いますが、他人の価値判断を否定する自由は、個人の価値判断の自由と同じです。それを「自分は正しい」といって他人に強制するのはファシズム以外の何物でもありません。それでも「地球を護るため」と言って強制（強制には暴力が必要となります）することは「日本を守るため」「ゲルマン民族を守るため」と論理的には同じだと思うのです。（「わかる」、「理解する」というのも私は文字文化だと思っています。「絵を理解する」とは？「この絵を説明してくれ」と言われるのは嫌です。「この小説を説明してください」と言われた小説家も嫌だと思うのですが。まあ、最近はほいほいと説明する作家も多くなっているような気がします(^_^;)。）
新型コロナウィルスのワクチンの有効性は分かりません。有効率は数字で示されていますが、それは私が罹らない率ではありません。私の価値判断は人に迷惑だと言われるかも知れません。価値判断（良い悪い）は数字で表すことができませんし、「科学的エビデンス」を持ち得るものではないのです（科学や技術・テクネーが文字文化です。「開かれた技術・知識・情報」と言う時はそこに注意が必要です）。
本を書かない人の哲学書は読めません。でも、あなたの親や祖父母、町内の人、ラーメン屋のオヤジ、ヤクルト売のオバサン（類型的で、差別的！）、・・・「変なことを言ってるな〜」とか「結構意味深じゃねぇ」とか思うのですが、大切なのはそういう「本を書いていない人」の意見なのではないでしょうか。もちろん、文字を持たない文化を知ることも大切です。多くの研究書・紹介書がありますが、「文字の文化で解釈したもの」以上に出ているものは殆どありません。「興味本位」「怖いもの見たさ」や「ノスタルジー」「優越感」などが混じっているものも多いです（西洋人から見た非西洋）。文字で文字のない文化（口承文化）を記述することは難しいのです。文字から逃れられないことと同じです。完全に理解することはできなくても、限りなく近づくことはできるのではないでしょうか。
母語ではない言語を勉強することはできます。でも、決して「ネイティブ」にはなれないでしょう。住んでいること、そこで生きていること、そこにあるものを食べていること、などが必要だと思います。そしてその言葉で考え、話をすること。言葉はその土地、そこに住む人々、から切り離されて存在することはないからです。「0」か「1」かではありません。私は「コンニチハ」と言うことも「ハロー」と言うこともできます。もう英語はゼロではありません。でも「1」には程遠いです。文字文化は「印刷」を生み出し、テレビや映画を生み出し、インターネットを生み出しました。文字は言葉を26文字（アルファベットでは）に置き換えました。今はコンピュータで「0」と「1」に抽象化（客体化）されています。その「0」と「1」が文法や共通語を作り出しました。それらは「アナログ」の「デジタル」による近似化ですし、文字による言語の否定です。環境問題というのは、技術による人間の否定だと思います。
言語がなければ文字はないですよね。人間がなければ技術もない。究極の自己否定に私たちは居ると思うのです。でも、希望もそこにしかないのではないでしょうか。土地から切り離された言語、文字文化により文法化された言語、その中に私たちは居て、生まれながらにテレビや映画やインターネットの中で育ちました。日本で言えば、「共通語」（私は「標準語」だと思っています）で、地域は関係なしにコミュニケーションをすることができます。ネイティブにはなれなくても、文法的に整っているなら外国語を習得することができます。「文字文化」でコミュニケーションすることに慣れているのです。その事を否定することはできないし、逃れることもできません。だからこそそれを利用するのです。
文字に支配されるのではなく、文字という「道具」を支配すること。革命の可能性はそこにあります。
⟨impressions⟩
It's a great book. A little less than 400 pages in the new book. That alone made me think that I could buy it. (^ _ ^;)
It seems that it is selling quite well. The fact that this book sells may not mean that Japan has abandoned it yet. I also recommend it to my professor (Ryuichi Sakamoto) (I've been a fan of professors for 40 years).
It is wonderful that the author is involved in the compilation of MEGA. I can't beat Marx with bad writing, but it's difficult to decipher documents that I can't read (I heard that he was involved in cryptanalysis in the Soviet era. Is it deep learning now?) .. Will there be a Japanese version of MEGA? It won't come out. Even if it comes out, there are hundreds of thousands of books. The old complete works (Werke), both the dietz version and the Otsuki version, were affordable to workers. However, MEGA has a high original document. So it is the privileged class that can know the late Marx. In this book as well, the author may have wanted to quote from MEGA, but only from WERKE (there is a reference to "Drafts"). To put it the other way around, WERKE also understands "Marx's ecology", and there is such research. The "North-South problem" has a long history, and the environmental problem has become a global recognition (?), And various studies have been conducted on "letter to Zasulich" and "criticism of the Gotha Code". is taken up by Negri Hart as a central concept, and Harvey and Graeber also speak and write from their respective positions. What's great about this book is that it reconstructs them from the perspective of late Marx. And at the same time, I think they have the same problems.
The content of this book has a good perspective, and I think that's right. Now, yesterday, and tomorrow, it's time to take action (action / practice), and it may be the "Point of no return" (was). No one can take action "yesterday" or "tomorrow". When do you act That's right now. So how can we reach 3.5% (the number of people to change society)? I've been looking for that opportunity for half a century. It's a pitiful story. Neither the earthquake nor 9/11 was the trigger (although I don't know yet). The new coronavirus is unlikely to be a trigger. With "crisis piggybacking capitalism", we have become accustomed to "crisis". It's a story about a wolf boy. While many people are desperately living and their lives are getting worse rather than getting better, SNS (including the media) is just full of criticisms of the current administration even though it may be tomorrow. It seems that he feels like he has vented the gas by throwing dissatisfaction with the person who admits the current administration. I think this book is wonderful in that it perfectly depicts the underlying problem. They were shared by many young people and intellectuals half a century ago. I'm glad that it leads to a younger (?) Generation like the author.
First is the title. The now-talked-about (?) Word is anthropocene, but the definition is not fixed, so the author's view should be clarified. Well, no matter how you define it, it doesn't affect the contents of this book, or I think the contents are the explanation of "Anthropocene". (I just read "new human beings". It's old. The author may not know.)
It is good to say that "capital theory" is a manifestation of intention to reconsider from the late Marx. But why should Marx not say it? Is it necessary? I often do it, but I bring a sentence saying that Marx says this. If it is not in Marx, I may bring out Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kitaro Nishida, Aristotle and Plato (^ _ ^;). It's authoritarian, isn't it? By taking out Marx, it is easy for people who know Marx (although not necessarily reading it) to accept it. It's completely different from "I think this way". So, I think people who actually read it will be attracted to it. (On the contrary, if you don't give Marx's name, you'll be told that it's Marx's plagiarism. (Laughs))
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why is "authoritarianism" established? It's not that authoritarianism is bad (because our thoughts are nothing more than an inheritance of the legacy of the past, which is also a book / letter), but that is inevitable. Without letters, there would be no Plato, no Aristotle ... no Marx. You can see that. The author is wrestling with that character (Marx's manuscript), and this "book" is also a "character." That character gave birth to the "nation." Originally, the letters are said to have been used commercially. And I think it's outside the community (where the letters are used). It is a "space between" the community and the community. As Marx says (^ _ ^;), the market arises "at the end of the community, between the communities". Democracy also occurs there (Graeber). The nation takes them in and makes them as if they were their own. It is not surprising that it itself causes the destruction of the community. It's something different for the community, different from the logic of the community. Letters are objects of words that create subjects and objects, creating conflicts between self and others, and between humans and nature. Objectification (which can be called hostility) is a prerequisite for possession. It's an abstraction and a quantification. It enables commerce (market). Self-alienation (alienation) as self-loss also occurs from there. Both Ressentiment and nihilism arise from it. There is also a conflict between value in use and value. Technology (τεχνη) and art (ars). If you don't think about it, you won't see "salvation."
Then what should I do. Once you know the letters, it is almost impossible to escape from them. Don't decapitalism pre-capitalist (undeveloped, barbaric?). There have been various attempts to escape "individually" from the character culture, although it is not "return to nature". Paradoxically, they cannot be transmitted unless they become "letters". Telephones, televisions, movies, photographs, the Internet ... Electricity that is likely to replace water and air (^ _ ^;), they are the result of character culture. If you can throw them away, that's fine, but it's almost impossible (although it may be forced into such a situation due to an earthquake or natural disaster, everyone is trying to return to their original lives. I can't say, "Because it's a big deal, just leave it as it is"). There is no such thing as "sustainable economic development," and there can be no "degrowth within capitalism." It is detailed in this book. It is true that we aim for a "luxury society." It is necessary to be aware of "true affluence". Eastern Europe and Russia before 1990 cannot be said to be "luxury societies," but I think that was the case in a sense. But they simply abandoned it and sought "the abundance of poverty full of things." By the way, both Stalinism and Maoism originate from the character culture. Although it can lead to the denial of letters like the Cultural Revolution. We do not admit fascism. There is no choice but to recognize that it is the result of character culture and use it in reverse. Negation of characters by character culture. To deny it positively. It's Marx's dialectic. Fascism denied the letters negatively (I think Adorno, who says "denial of denial is denial", is wrong). The opposite is to move to another stage. It is "sublimation". I don't really know the specific method. Perhaps, just as individuals (also created by character culture) are different, I just think that there are many different ways to do it. Marx must read from that perspective. Marx brilliantly portrayed capitalism in "Capitalism." I have never seen economics (?) Beyond that. But capitalism was not written to affirm capitalism. I think it's a way of denying letters by letters.
(The pages devoted to value morphology and exchange process theory in capital theory (Volume 1) are only a part of the whole. After Marx's death, the controversy in Marxian economics is largely value theory and value. I think it was spent on morphology, exchange process theory, and monetary theory. I also thought, "If this were the case, I wish I had written it in more detail." But for Marx, I wanted you to read the part of the document such as working days. A letter to Dr. Marx. Was it just a feeling of giving up that the workers would not understand?)
I don't know the philosopher who denied the letters. That's right. Most of them find it worthwhile to write. Denying it means denying one's actions. Not only philosophy, but also economics and sociology, 99.999% of what is called scholarship is not negative about writing letters (some ancient Greek literature, letters in the books of those who affirmed writing) The philosopher who did not write is written "negatively"). Linguists who are negative about letters have appeared around 2000, but at the end they run away saying, "People who learned letters and those who grew up in a letter culture cannot escape from that culture." I'm thinking of running away (laughs). And say. "You have to be aware." I think the attitude of this book is the same.
The question is how individuals judge (value) and act out. But it should not be forced. I think that more information that can be used as a basis for judgment should be presented as in this book, but the freedom to deny the value judgment of others is the same as the freedom of individual value judgment. It is nothing but fascism to force others to say "I am right". Even so, I think that forcing (forced violence is required) by saying "to protect the earth" is logically the same as "to protect Japan" and "to protect the Germanic people." (I think that "understanding" and "understanding" are also character cultures. What is "understanding a picture"? I hate being asked to "explain this picture". I don't like the novelist who said, "Please explain the novel." Well, I think there are more and more writers who explain it to me these days.)
The effectiveness of the new coronavirus vaccine is unknown. The effective rate is shown numerically, but it's not the rate I don't get. Some people may say that my value judgment is annoying. Value judgment (good or bad) cannot be expressed numerically, and it is not possible to have "scientific evidence" (science, technology, techne is a character culture. "Open technology, knowledge, information" You need to be careful when you say it).
People who do not write books cannot read philosophical books. But your parents, grandparents, people in the neighborhood, ramen shop father, Yakult sales obasan ... I think "I'm saying something strange" or "It's not quite deep", but the important thing is Isn't it the opinion of such a "person who hasn't written a book"? Of course, it is also important to know the culture that does not have letters. There are many research books and introductory books, but few of them are more than "interpreted in the culture of letters". Many of them are a mixture of "interesting", "scared things", "nostalgia", and "superiority complex" (non-Western as seen by Westerners). It is difficult to describe a culture without letters (oral culture). It's the same as not being able to escape from the letters. Even if you can't fully understand it, you can get as close as you can.
You can study a language that is not your mother tongue. But you will never be "native". I think it is necessary to live, live there, and eat what is there. And think and talk in those words. Words do not exist separately from the land, the people who live there. It is not "0" or "1". I can say "Konichiha" or "Hello". English is not zero anymore. But it is far from "1". Character culture created "printing," television and movies, and the Internet. The letters replaced the words with 26 letters (in the alphabet). Now it is abstracted (objectified) to "0" and "1" on the computer. The "0" and "1" created the grammar and common language. They are "digital" approximations of "analog" and denial of language by letters. I think that environmental problems are human denials due to technology.
If there is no language, there are no letters. Without humans, there is no technology. I think we are in the ultimate self-denial. But I think there is only hope there. A language separated from the land, a language grammaticalized by the character culture, in which we were born and grew up on television, movies and the Internet. In Japan, it is a "common language" (I think it is a "standard language"), and regions can communicate regardless. Even if you can't become a native speaker, you can learn a foreign language if you are grammatically prepared. I am accustomed to communicating in "letter culture". You can't deny that, and you can't escape. That's why we use it.
To control the "tool" of letters, not to be dominated by letters. The potential for a revolution is there.
It's a great book. A little less than 400 pages in the new book. That alone made me think that I could buy it. (^ _ ^;)
It seems that it is selling quite well. The fact that this book sells may not mean that Japan has abandoned it yet. I also recommend it to my professor (Ryuichi Sakamoto) (I've been a fan of professors for 40 years).
It is wonderful that the author is involved in the compilation of MEGA. I can't beat Marx with bad writing, but it's difficult to decipher documents that I can't read (I heard that he was involved in cryptanalysis in the Soviet era. Is it deep learning now?) .. Will there be a Japanese version of MEGA? It won't come out. Even if it comes out, there are hundreds of thousands of books. The old complete works (Werke), both the dietz version and the Otsuki version, were affordable to workers. However, MEGA has a high original document. So it is the privileged class that can know the late Marx. In this book as well, the author may have wanted to quote from MEGA, but only from WERKE (there is a reference to "Drafts"). To put it the other way around, WERKE also understands "Marx's ecology", and there is such research. The "North-South problem" has a long history, and the environmental problem has become a global recognition (?), And various studies have been conducted on "letter to Zasulich" and "criticism of the Gotha Code".
The content of this book has a good perspective, and I think that's right. Now, yesterday, and tomorrow, it's time to take action (action / practice), and it may be the "Point of no return" (was). No one can take action "yesterday" or "tomorrow". When do you act That's right now. So how can we reach 3.5% (the number of people to change society)? I've been looking for that opportunity for half a century. It's a pitiful story. Neither the earthquake nor 9/11 was the trigger (although I don't know yet). The new coronavirus is unlikely to be a trigger. With "crisis piggybacking capitalism", we have become accustomed to "crisis". It's a story about a wolf boy. While many people are desperately living and their lives are getting worse rather than getting better, SNS (including the media) is just full of criticisms of the current administration even though it may be tomorrow. It seems that he feels like he has vented the gas by throwing dissatisfaction with the person who admits the current administration. I think this book is wonderful in that it perfectly depicts the underlying problem. They were shared by many young people and intellectuals half a century ago. I'm glad that it leads to a younger (?) Generation like the author.
First is the title. The now-talked-about (?) Word is anthropocene, but the definition is not fixed, so the author's view should be clarified. Well, no matter how you define it, it doesn't affect the contents of this book, or I think the contents are the explanation of "Anthropocene". (I just read "new human beings". It's old. The author may not know.)
It is good to say that "capital theory" is a manifestation of intention to reconsider from the late Marx. But why should Marx not say it? Is it necessary? I often do it, but I bring a sentence saying that Marx says this. If it is not in Marx, I may bring out Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kitaro Nishida, Aristotle and Plato (^ _ ^;). It's authoritarian, isn't it? By taking out Marx, it is easy for people who know Marx (although not necessarily reading it) to accept it. It's completely different from "I think this way". So, I think people who actually read it will be attracted to it. (On the contrary, if you don't give Marx's name, you'll be told that it's Marx's plagiarism. (Laughs))
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why is "authoritarianism" established? It's not that authoritarianism is bad (because our thoughts are nothing more than an inheritance of the legacy of the past, which is also a book / letter), but that is inevitable. Without letters, there would be no Plato, no Aristotle ... no Marx. You can see that. The author is wrestling with that character (Marx's manuscript), and this "book" is also a "character." That character gave birth to the "nation." Originally, the letters are said to have been used commercially. And I think it's outside the community (where the letters are used). It is a "space between" the community and the community. As Marx says (^ _ ^;), the market arises "at the end of the community, between the communities". Democracy also occurs there (Graeber). The nation takes them in and makes them as if they were their own. It is not surprising that it itself causes the destruction of the community. It's something different for the community, different from the logic of the community. Letters are objects of words that create subjects and objects, creating conflicts between self and others, and between humans and nature. Objectification (which can be called hostility) is a prerequisite for possession. It's an abstraction and a quantification. It enables commerce (market). Self-alienation (alienation) as self-loss also occurs from there. Both Ressentiment and nihilism arise from it. There is also a conflict between value in use and value. Technology (τεχνη) and art (ars). If you don't think about it, you won't see "salvation."
Then what should I do. Once you know the letters, it is almost impossible to escape from them. Don't decapitalism pre-capitalist (undeveloped, barbaric?). There have been various attempts to escape "individually" from the character culture, although it is not "return to nature". Paradoxically, they cannot be transmitted unless they become "letters". Telephones, televisions, movies, photographs, the Internet ... Electricity that is likely to replace water and air (^ _ ^;), they are the result of character culture. If you can throw them away, that's fine, but it's almost impossible (although it may be forced into such a situation due to an earthquake or natural disaster, everyone is trying to return to their original lives. I can't say, "Because it's a big deal, just leave it as it is"). There is no such thing as "sustainable economic development," and there can be no "degrowth within capitalism." It is detailed in this book. It is true that we aim for a "luxury society." It is necessary to be aware of "true affluence". Eastern Europe and Russia before 1990 cannot be said to be "luxury societies," but I think that was the case in a sense. But they simply abandoned it and sought "the abundance of poverty full of things." By the way, both Stalinism and Maoism originate from the character culture. Although it can lead to the denial of letters like the Cultural Revolution. We do not admit fascism. There is no choice but to recognize that it is the result of character culture and use it in reverse. Negation of characters by character culture. To deny it positively. It's Marx's dialectic. Fascism denied the letters negatively (I think Adorno, who says "denial of denial is denial", is wrong). The opposite is to move to another stage. It is "sublimation". I don't really know the specific method. Perhaps, just as individuals (also created by character culture) are different, I just think that there are many different ways to do it. Marx must read from that perspective. Marx brilliantly portrayed capitalism in "Capitalism." I have never seen economics (?) Beyond that. But capitalism was not written to affirm capitalism. I think it's a way of denying letters by letters.
(The pages devoted to value morphology and exchange process theory in capital theory (Volume 1) are only a part of the whole. After Marx's death, the controversy in Marxian economics is largely value theory and value. I think it was spent on morphology, exchange process theory, and monetary theory. I also thought, "If this were the case, I wish I had written it in more detail." But for Marx, I wanted you to read the part of the document such as working days. A letter to Dr. Marx. Was it just a feeling of giving up that the workers would not understand?)
I don't know the philosopher who denied the letters. That's right. Most of them find it worthwhile to write. Denying it means denying one's actions. Not only philosophy, but also economics and sociology, 99.999% of what is called scholarship is not negative about writing letters (some ancient Greek literature, letters in the books of those who affirmed writing) The philosopher who did not write is written "negatively"). Linguists who are negative about letters have appeared around 2000, but at the end they run away saying, "People who learned letters and those who grew up in a letter culture cannot escape from that culture." I'm thinking of running away (laughs). And say. "You have to be aware." I think the attitude of this book is the same.
The question is how individuals judge (value) and act out. But it should not be forced. I think that more information that can be used as a basis for judgment should be presented as in this book, but the freedom to deny the value judgment of others is the same as the freedom of individual value judgment. It is nothing but fascism to force others to say "I am right". Even so, I think that forcing (forced violence is required) by saying "to protect the earth" is logically the same as "to protect Japan" and "to protect the Germanic people." (I think that "understanding" and "understanding" are also character cultures. What is "understanding a picture"? I hate being asked to "explain this picture". I don't like the novelist who said, "Please explain the novel." Well, I think there are more and more writers who explain it to me these days.)
The effectiveness of the new coronavirus vaccine is unknown. The effective rate is shown numerically, but it's not the rate I don't get. Some people may say that my value judgment is annoying. Value judgment (good or bad) cannot be expressed numerically, and it is not possible to have "scientific evidence" (science, technology, techne is a character culture. "Open technology, knowledge, information" You need to be careful when you say it).
People who do not write books cannot read philosophical books. But your parents, grandparents, people in the neighborhood, ramen shop father, Yakult sales obasan ... I think "I'm saying something strange" or "It's not quite deep", but the important thing is Isn't it the opinion of such a "person who hasn't written a book"? Of course, it is also important to know the culture that does not have letters. There are many research books and introductory books, but few of them are more than "interpreted in the culture of letters". Many of them are a mixture of "interesting", "scared things", "nostalgia", and "superiority complex" (non-Western as seen by Westerners). It is difficult to describe a culture without letters (oral culture). It's the same as not being able to escape from the letters. Even if you can't fully understand it, you can get as close as you can.
You can study a language that is not your mother tongue. But you will never be "native". I think it is necessary to live, live there, and eat what is there. And think and talk in those words. Words do not exist separately from the land, the people who live there. It is not "0" or "1". I can say "Konichiha" or "Hello". English is not zero anymore. But it is far from "1". Character culture created "printing," television and movies, and the Internet. The letters replaced the words with 26 letters (in the alphabet). Now it is abstracted (objectified) to "0" and "1" on the computer. The "0" and "1" created the grammar and common language. They are "digital" approximations of "analog" and denial of language by letters. I think that environmental problems are human denials due to technology.
If there is no language, there are no letters. Without humans, there is no technology. I think we are in the ultimate self-denial. But I think there is only hope there. A language separated from the land, a language grammaticalized by the character culture, in which we were born and grew up on television, movies and the Internet. In Japan, it is a "common language" (I think it is a "standard language"), and regions can communicate regardless. Even if you can't become a native speaker, you can learn a foreign language if you are grammatically prepared. I am accustomed to communicating in "letter culture". You can't deny that, and you can't escape. That's why we use it.
To control the "tool" of letters, not to be dominated by letters. The potential for a revolution is there.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
斎藤幸平(さいとう こうへい)
1987年生まれ。大阪市立大学大学院経済学研究科准教授。ベルリン・フンボルト大学哲学科博士課程修了。博士(哲学)。専門は経済思想、社会思想。
Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism:Capital,Nature,and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy (邦訳『大洪水の前に』)によって権威ある「ドイッチャー記念賞」を日本人初歴代最年少で受賞。
編著に『未来への大分岐』など。
人類の経済活動が地球を破壊する「人新世」=環境危機の時代。
気候変動を放置すれば、この社会は野蛮状態に陥るだろう。
それを阻止するためには資本主義の際限なき利潤追求を止めなければならないが、資本主義を捨てた文明に繁栄などありうるのか。
いや、危機の解決策はある。
ヒントは、著者が発掘した晩期マルクスの思想の中に眠っていた。
世界的に注目を浴びる俊英が、豊かな未来社会への道筋を具体的に描きだす!
【各界が絶賛!】
■松岡正剛氏(編集工学研究所所長)
気候、マルクス、人新世。 これらを横断する経済思想が、ついに出現したね。日本はそんな才能を待っていた!
■白井聡氏(政治学者)
「マルクスへ帰れ」と人は言う。だがマルクスからどこへ行く?斎藤幸平は、その答えに誰よりも早くたどり着いた。 理論と実践の、この見事な結合に刮目せよ。
■坂本龍一氏(音楽家)
気候危機をとめ、生活を豊かにし、余暇を増やし、格差もなくなる、そんな社会が可能だとしたら?
■水野和夫氏(経済学者)
資本主義を終わらせれば、豊かな社会がやってくる。だが、資本主義を止めなければ、歴史が終わる。常識を破る、衝撃の名著だ。
【おもな内容】
はじめに――SDGsは「大衆のアヘン」である!
第1章:気候変動と帝国的生活様式
気候変動が文明を危機に/フロンティアの消滅―市場と環境の二重の限界にぶつかる資本主義
第2章:気候ケインズ主義の限界
二酸化炭素排出と経済成長は切り離せない
第3章:資本主義システムでの脱成長を撃つ
なぜ資本主義では脱成長は不可能なのか
第4章:「人新世」のマルクス
地球を〈コモン〉として管理する/〈コモン〉を再建するためのコミュニズム/新解釈! 進歩史観を捨てた晩年のマルクス
第5章:加速主義という現実逃避
生産力至上主義が生んだ幻想/資本の「包摂」によって無力になる私たち
第6章:欠乏の資本主義、潤沢なコミュニズム
貧しさの原因は資本主義
第7章:脱成長コミュニズムが世界を救う
コロナ禍も「人新世」の産物/脱成長コミュニズムとは何か
第8章 気候正義という「梃子」
グローバル・サウスから世界へ
おわりに――歴史を終わらせないために
気候変動を放置すれば、この社会は野蛮状態に陥るだろう。
それを阻止するためには資本主義の際限なき利潤追求を止めなければならないが、資本主義を捨てた文明に繁栄などありうるのか。
いや、危機の解決策はある。
ヒントは、著者が発掘した晩期マルクスの思想の中に眠っていた。
世界的に注目を浴びる俊英が、豊かな未来社会への道筋を具体的に描きだす!
【各界が絶賛!】
■松岡正剛氏(編集工学研究所所長)
気候、マルクス、人新世。 これらを横断する経済思想が、ついに出現したね。日本はそんな才能を待っていた!
■白井聡氏(政治学者)
「マルクスへ帰れ」と人は言う。だがマルクスからどこへ行く?斎藤幸平は、その答えに誰よりも早くたどり着いた。 理論と実践の、この見事な結合に刮目せよ。
■坂本龍一氏(音楽家)
気候危機をとめ、生活を豊かにし、余暇を増やし、格差もなくなる、そんな社会が可能だとしたら?
■水野和夫氏(経済学者)
資本主義を終わらせれば、豊かな社会がやってくる。だが、資本主義を止めなければ、歴史が終わる。常識を破る、衝撃の名著だ。
【おもな内容】
はじめに――SDGsは「大衆のアヘン」である!
第1章:気候変動と帝国的生活様式
気候変動が文明を危機に/フロンティアの消滅―市場と環境の二重の限界にぶつかる資本主義
第2章:気候ケインズ主義の限界
二酸化炭素排出と経済成長は切り離せない
第3章:資本主義システムでの脱成長を撃つ
なぜ資本主義では脱成長は不可能なのか
第4章:「人新世」のマルクス
地球を〈コモン〉として管理する/〈コモン〉を再建するためのコミュニズム/新解釈! 進歩史観を捨てた晩年のマルクス
第5章:加速主義という現実逃避
生産力至上主義が生んだ幻想/資本の「包摂」によって無力になる私たち
第6章:欠乏の資本主義、潤沢なコミュニズム
貧しさの原因は資本主義
第7章:脱成長コミュニズムが世界を救う
コロナ禍も「人新世」の産物/脱成長コミュニズムとは何か
第8章 気候正義という「梃子」
グローバル・サウスから世界へ
おわりに――歴史を終わらせないために
坂本龍一 第9回 「禁煙」について言いきる https://openers.jp/lounge/5203
坂本龍一 第7回 「女性」について言いきる https://openers.jp/lounge/4733
坂本龍一 第5回 「エコ」について言いきる https://openers.jp/lounge/4586
坂本龍一 第10回 「英語」について言いきる https://openers.jp/lounge/5204
坂本龍一 第8回 「エコのファッション化」について言いきる https://openers.jp/lounge/4734
無力になった私たちは資本主義なしには生きられないと無意識のうちに感じているのだ。そのため、対案を生み出すはずの左翼の想像力も貧困になっていく。（P.220）
自然とともに生きるための技術を失ってしまっているのである。だから私たちは周辺部からの収奪によってしか、都市の生活を成り立たせることができない。（P.220）
つまり、技術というイデオロギーこそが、現代社会に蔓延する想像力の貧困の一因といえる。（P.229-230）
ローダデールに言わせれば、「私富」の増大は、貨幣で測れる「国富」を増やすが、真の意味での国民にとっての富である「公富」=コモンズの減少をもたらす。（P.245）
新自由主義であろうがなかろうが、資本主義が続く限り、「本源的蓄積」は継続する。そして、希少性を維持・増大することで、資本は利潤を上げていく。そのことは九九%の私たちにとっては、欠乏の永続化を意味しているのだ。（P.250）ー資本への依存を強める（Char）
なんらかの方法で、人工的に希少性を作り出すことができれば、市場はなんにでも価格をつけることができるようになる。（P.250）
コモンズを失った人々は、商品世界に投げ込まれる。そこで、直面するのは「貨幣の希少性」である。世の中には商品があふれている。けれども、貨幣がなければ、私たちはなにも買うことができない。（P.252）ー当たり前だけど、当たり前だと思うことが問題。（Char）
希少性という観点から見れば、ブランド化は「相対的希少性」を作り出すといってもいい。差異化することで、他人よりも高い社会的ステータスを得ようとするのである。（P.256）
買ったものもすぐに新モデルの発売によって古びてしまう。消費者の理想はけっして実現されない。（P.256）
これを「民営化」をもじって、市民の手による「‹市民›営化」と呼ぼう。（P.259）ー再生可能エネルギー（ないけど）を作りのにも商品が必要。永久機関の維持・補填・更新にもエネルギーが要る（Char）
貧相な生活を耐え忍ぶことを強いる緊縮のシステムは、人工的希少性に依拠した資本主義の方である。私たちは、十分に生産していないから貧しいのではなく、資本主義が希少性を本質とするから、貧しいのだ。これが「価値と使用価値の対立」である。（P.268-269）
資本主義の人工的希少性に対する対抗策が、‹コモン›の復権による「ラディカルな潤沢さ」の再建である。これこそ、脱成長コミュニズムが目指す「反緊縮」なのだ。（P.269）
具体的な「もし」（what if...）が既存の秩序を受け入れてしまう想像力の貧困を克服し、資本の支配に亀裂を入れる。（P.295）
生産の次元に蒔かれた種は、消費の次元では生まなかった希望という果実を実らせつつある。（P.296）
知識や情報は社会全体の‹コモン›であるべきなのだ。知識がもつ「ラディカルな潤沢さ」は回復されなくてはならない。（P.311-312）ーそうなんだけど、開かれた技術を人民のものにするのはデカすぎる。100人も覚えられない。（Char）
Lauderdale Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of public wealth
列車とバス、内部機関と発電所。電気自動車は本当にエコ？
[拡大] [ ISBN-13 : 978-4087211351 ]
