著者
田上 孝一
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.48, no.2, pp.40-49, 2011-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

The aim of this paper is to compare Wataru Hiromatsu's theory of reification with Karl Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu insists that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. So I examine Hiromatsu's remark. In this paper, I mainly concern the rightness of Hiromatsu's interpretation of Marx. I do not concern the validity of Hiromatsu's theory on the contemporary society. In section one, I doubt the Japanese translation of reification. In original German word, reification is Versachlichung. In ordinary Japanese translation, Versachlichung is "Butsushoka". Butsusho means phenomenal thing. Ka means transformation. So Butsushoka means something is transformed to phenomenal thing. But this meaning cannot tell the conceptual content of Versachlichung. The stem of Versachlichung is Sache. Sache is the counter word of Person. So Versachlicung means that Person is transformed to Sache, in English, personality is transformed to thing. It means not epistemological aspect but ontological situation. So Butsushoka is not correct. "Butsukenka" is correct. Because "butsuken" correctly means Sache. That is why I insist that Versachlichung should be translated into not Butsushoka but Butsukenka. In section two, I explain the core concept of Marx's theory of reification. The basic usage of reification by Marx is "reification of personality and personalization of thing". The conceptual dimension of reification in Marx's case is not epistemological but ontological. By the theory of reification Marx tries to clarify the real upside-down structure of capitalism. For Marx capitalism is the society in which labor's personality becomes a thing like goods. Capitalism is not slavery. But in fact, it is the wage-slave society. Marx charges this fact by the theory of reification. In short, for Marx reification is the essence of capitalism. Marx also charges the fetishism in capitalism. The concept of fetishism in Marx's case is expression of reification. It is also phenomenon of reification. The relationships of reification and fetishism are "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon". And reification is also alienation. It is one dimension of alienation. Marx insists that capitalist is arisen by alienated labor. The alienation of labor of workers from his/her own labor process is cause of capitalism. So alienation is cause of reification. That is why alienation and reification and fetishism are mutual "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon" relationships. In section three, I examine Hiromatsu's theory of reification. Hiromatsu tells about reification but he does not analyze Versachlichung. Only he analyses is not Versachlichung but Fetischismus. But fetishism is only a expression of reification. Owing to analyze fetishism we cannot clarify reification. Why has he this illusion? Because he thinks reification and fetishism as being the same. Through this reason he one-sidedly looks reification as epistemological concept. For Hiromatsu, reification as the real upside-down structure is "the vulgar reification". But Marx himself has this vulgar idea. Hiromatsu's reification is a very odd theory. Conclusion: Hiromatsu's theory of reification is a distortion of Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu himself thinks that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. But in fact, Hiromatsu's theory has nothing to do with Marx. So Hiromatsu's theory of reification is not Marxist one but his own philosophical fantasy.
著者
田上 孝一
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.48, no.2, pp.40-49, 2011-07-20

The aim of this paper is to compare Wataru Hiromatsu's theory of reification with Karl Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu insists that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. So I examine Hiromatsu's remark. In this paper, I mainly concern the rightness of Hiromatsu's interpretation of Marx. I do not concern the validity of Hiromatsu's theory on the contemporary society. In section one, I doubt the Japanese translation of reification. In original German word, reification is Versachlichung. In ordinary Japanese translation, Versachlichung is "Butsushoka". Butsusho means phenomenal thing. Ka means transformation. So Butsushoka means something is transformed to phenomenal thing. But this meaning cannot tell the conceptual content of Versachlichung. The stem of Versachlichung is Sache. Sache is the counter word of Person. So Versachlicung means that Person is transformed to Sache, in English, personality is transformed to thing. It means not epistemological aspect but ontological situation. So Butsushoka is not correct. "Butsukenka" is correct. Because "butsuken" correctly means Sache. That is why I insist that Versachlichung should be translated into not Butsushoka but Butsukenka. In section two, I explain the core concept of Marx's theory of reification. The basic usage of reification by Marx is "reification of personality and personalization of thing". The conceptual dimension of reification in Marx's case is not epistemological but ontological. By the theory of reification Marx tries to clarify the real upside-down structure of capitalism. For Marx capitalism is the society in which labor's personality becomes a thing like goods. Capitalism is not slavery. But in fact, it is the wage-slave society. Marx charges this fact by the theory of reification. In short, for Marx reification is the essence of capitalism. Marx also charges the fetishism in capitalism. The concept of fetishism in Marx's case is expression of reification. It is also phenomenon of reification. The relationships of reification and fetishism are "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon". And reification is also alienation. It is one dimension of alienation. Marx insists that capitalist is arisen by alienated labor. The alienation of labor of workers from his/her own labor process is cause of capitalism. So alienation is cause of reification. That is why alienation and reification and fetishism are mutual "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon" relationships. In section three, I examine Hiromatsu's theory of reification. Hiromatsu tells about reification but he does not analyze Versachlichung. Only he analyses is not Versachlichung but Fetischismus. But fetishism is only a expression of reification. Owing to analyze fetishism we cannot clarify reification. Why has he this illusion? Because he thinks reification and fetishism as being the same. Through this reason he one-sidedly looks reification as epistemological concept. For Hiromatsu, reification as the real upside-down structure is "the vulgar reification". But Marx himself has this vulgar idea. Hiromatsu's reification is a very odd theory. Conclusion: Hiromatsu's theory of reification is a distortion of Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu himself thinks that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. But in fact, Hiromatsu's theory has nothing to do with Marx. So Hiromatsu's theory of reification is not Marxist one but his own philosophical fantasy.
著者
田上 孝一
出版者
東京電機大学
雑誌
東京電機大学総合文化研究 (ISSN:1348799X)
巻号頁・発行日
no.12, pp.251-255, 2014-12
著者
田上孝一編著
出版者
社会評論社
巻号頁・発行日
2017
著者
田上孝一編著
出版者
社会評論社
巻号頁・発行日
2018
著者
田上孝一著
出版者
社会評論社
巻号頁・発行日
2018
著者
松井 暁 松元 雅和 向山 恭一 坂口 緑 伊藤 恭彦 施 光恒 田上 孝一 有賀 誠
出版者
専修大学
雑誌
基盤研究(C)
巻号頁・発行日
2016-04-01

本プロジェクトでは、全体テーマであるグローバル・イシューを六つのパートに分け、グループに分かれて研究を推進する体制をとった。すなわち、グローバル市場、政治空間の変容、戦争と平和、環境・生命、主体・関係・アイデンティティの変容、変革の方向である。そのうち、グローバル市場については、伊藤恭彦が国際的な課税の正義に関する著作を発表した。政治空間の変容については、有賀誠が著作『臨界点の政治学』で総合的に考察している。松元雅和が合理的投票者の行動についての論考を、施光恒が愛国主義と左派を巡る論考を提出した。戦争と平和については、松元雅和がテロと戦う論理と倫理について、有賀誠が上述書で正戦論について検討している。環境・生命では、松井暁が生産性の上昇や労働からの解放といった現象とエコロジーの両立可能性を探求している。主体・関係・アイデンティティの変容では坂口緑のポスト・コミュニタリアニズム論や承認論の研究が進んでいる。最後に変革の方向については、施光恒がリベラルな「脱グローバル化」の探求という観点から、新自由主義、ナショナリズム、保守主義を比較検討し、田上孝一がマルクスの社会主義を哲学的観点から再考している。それぞれの研究は、すべて本プロジェクトのテーマであるグローバル・イシューとの関連を踏まえつつ進められている。すでに出された業績からは、本プロジェクトの特色である規範理論的なアプローチの成果が明らかに示されている。
著者
大西 広 田上 孝一 瀬戸 宏 松井 暁
出版者
慶應義塾大学
雑誌
基盤研究(C)
巻号頁・発行日
2013-04-01

本研究の多くの部分は研究代表者・分担者が所属する社会主義理論学会の協力を得た。特に中国の研究者との交流を重視し、2013年12月に12名の中国人研究者を招き、「中国特色社会主義の行方と理論問題」の主題で第四回日中社会主義フォーラムを開催した。2015年4月には中国人研究者1名を招き講演会「『さあ「資本論」を読んでみよう』について」を開催した。2016年3月には四名の中国人研究者を招き、「中国社会主義の多様性」を主題に第五回日中社会主義フォーラムを開催した。いずれも社会主義理論学会と当科研費プロジェクトの共催である。参加者・集会報告などはいずれも社会主義理論学会HPに掲載されている。
著者
田上孝一著
出版者
時潮社
巻号頁・発行日
2013