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.

言及状況

外部データベース (DOI)

はてなブックマーク (1 users, 1 posts)

マルクスの「物象化論」が「疎外論」の延長上であるにも関わらず、廣松渉は「疎外論抜きの物象化論」をやろうとして変なことになっているという批判。

Twitter (28 users, 36 posts, 56 favorites)

@Jssca1917117 冒頭でソビエト心理学どうこうは時代を感じさせますね。なお、私の場合、「マルクスの物象化論と廣松の物象化論」という、「物件化」についてかなり明解に解説している論文で田上孝一氏が言及しておりこの本を知りました。https://t.co/sdQLs0obLC
「マルクスの物象化論と廣松の物象化論」 田上 孝一(立正大学) https://t.co/WX5QclBJzH これを皆が読めばそれで解決じゃないんですかね? (無料で読めますよ)
最近の学習で政治を変えるだけでも(=政治主義批判)、経済を変えるだけでもだめで倫理学へ注目することは重要だなあと。放置していた芝田進午(Versachlichungの「物件化」訳提唱、リンク先田上論文注1参照)はちゃんと読みたい。ソ連のサイバネティクス論とかも興味深い。https://t.co/sdQLs0obLC
田上孝一(2011)「マルクスの物象化論と廣松の物象化論 」 石塚先生の論考から飛んで読んだが、平易な文体で分かりやすい説明。 https://t.co/v4COeobhFN
@St8GWBikWwNVhOV ヒデザネ氏のその論文が『G-W-G-』という名の雑誌に掲載されたことは「セクハラ物象化論」のようなそのポストモダンな内容と奇妙な関係にもあったでしょうか。そして廣松渉を批判し田上博士が剔抉した物件化概念は、啓発的です。セクハラからこそ物件化=商品化も視えるのでは。https://t.co/DkNKMFjOQ5
@xsakux1 >リンク先本文より 貨幣という一面的な物を得るためだけに生きる人間は,彼自身の本来の豊かさを失い物のようになってしまっている。彼は物のようになってしまった人間,物件化された人間なのである。 https://t.co/m9m1aygdon
J-STAGE Articles - マルクスの物象化論と廣松の物象化論(<特集>廣松物象化論と経済学) https://t.co/NlDNMemCVR マルクスの物象化論に関しては、これを読んでみると、廣松氏の残した影響の大きさの片鱗が伺えるとは思う。これがフリーで読めるのは凄い。
物象化論 https://t.co/kH1hnRqo2x
メモ:#資本論冒頭 #価値形態論 マルクスの物象化論と廣松の物象化論 田上孝一(立正大学) https://t.co/2zAi2Q3R5I かなり明快。(まだ途中だが)

収集済み URL リスト