#Review to #KoheiSaito 'Natur gegen Kapital', 'Nature against #Capital':

I took the moment to read the book fast without remarks and underlining. So the first nice thing, that is absolutely possible. Most evaluations are practical, like historical explanations about the development of modern #agriculture in relation to Marx personal development and the difference between the first #Kapital editions.

Saito starts with #Marx, Engels and #Feuerbach. This part can be understood even though you know few about how crucial Feuerbach was to Marx and what exactly this new german ideology is. Why Feuerbach was crucial, and why Marx finally rejected Feuerbach will be explained to you.

In the following part Saito talks about Entfremdung (alianation) introduces this term in meaning represented by 'Das Kapital', but also Feuerbach and Hegel, and goes ahead with the Japanese school of thought and their particular different interpretation of abstract work, that is according them found in reality and has existed before the start of capitalism. This brings you some headakes to keep on understanding some few following chapters, but all in all conclusive.

Even though this interpretation is diametrically to those of #RobertKurz and #MichaelHeinrichs, it come to plenty of similar conclusions and claims to follow the same idea of Heinrichs science of value.

The most interesting part of Saito starts, when he starts following Marx observation towards, at that time contemporary research, of agriculture and how this changed Marx entire cause from an optimist person thinking in linear progress, to someone pessimistic, and later on into an pessimistic optimism, when Marx finally learned about the impact of human made climate change.

And yes, you heard right. A botanic called #Fraas wrote about how Forrest disappearance finally leads to the disappearance of Farming, although trees were remove to make space for farming. His argument was, that the impacting climate in this regions lead to desertification. We talk about mid 19th century science, that caught Marx attention.

Saito is able to increase the wow effect, so you keep on reading. In total a good book, nice to read and some incredible messages inside to a generation, that for some not obvious reasons wants to survive #ClimateChange.

I might later post some of these messages, but would suggest you reading the book instead.

#Wertkritik #ValueCritique #ScienceOfValue

To #KoheiSaito.s book: Nature against Capital.

What #KoheiSaito does not grasp in his short critique of the collapse theory of #ValueCritique, #Wertkritik (#RobertKurz), however, is that the "doggedness of capital" and its dynamics ("elastic potencies") for the reproduction of itself, is not denied, but, according to the value critique, they are the cause of exponentially increasing costs within the scientific capitalist enterprise (development, research), which can only be covered by a total social debt (e.g. public debt), but hardly by an entrepreneurial accumulation. Thus, precisely because of the facts cited by Saito for the refutation of the value critique, capital is already long time processing outside of its actual operational range and must collapse accordingly due to a not realizable recreation of value, according to the value critique. This can be continued (simulated) only as long as the socialization of debts can be maintained with the simultaneous privatization of profits.***

Although Saito admits that he has not even considered the doctrine of value necessary for this statement, he already indicates with the unquestioned adoption of Burkett's quote that his understanding of value comes precisely from #MichaelHeinrichs and is thus diametrically opposed to Kurz's interpretation. Meanwhile, he does little to shake the value critique itself.

Still, the book is well worth reading, and I haven't quite finished it yet either. So maybe he'll still get his act together 😉.

*** For example, Germany's debt today will last until almost 2075, so we have to work for another 52 years to recoup the money we've already spent. In 2030, for example, it could already take until 2150 and in 2050 until the year 2200 or even 2300. It is obvious that this cannot be maintained endlessly. Countries like Haiti for instance can not rely on such a process of eternally raising debts, to maintain production of goods within social (worldwide) average costs, so that they necissarily loose an economic basis and collapse.

Zu #KoheiSaito.s Buch: Natur gegen Kapital

Was #KoheiSaito an seiner kurzen Kritik der Zusammenbruchstheorie der #Wertkritik (#RobertKurz) allerdings nicht erfasst, ist das die "Verbissenheit des Kapitals" und seine Dynamik ("elastische Potenzen") zur Reproduktion seiner selbst, nicht etwa geleugnet wird, sondern nach der Wertkritik eben Verursacher für exponentiell steigende Kosten innerhalb des wissenschaftlichen kapitalistischen Betriebes (Entwicklung, Forschung) darstellen, die nur noch durch eine soziale Gesamtverschuldung (zum Beispiel Staatsschulden) kaum aber noch durch eine unternehmerische Akkumulation gedeckt werden können. Somit prozessiert das Kapital eben genau wegen des von Saito zur Widerlegung der Wertkritik angeführten Sachverhalts schon lange außerhalb seines eigentlichen Arbeitsbereich und muss entsprechend an einer nicht mehr realisierbaren Verwertung des Werts kollabieren, so die Wertkritik. Dies kann nur solange fortgeführt (simuliert) werden, solange die Sozialisierung von Schulden bei gleichzeitiger Privatisierung von Profiten aufrecht gehalten werden kann.***

Obwohl Saito zugibt, die zu dieser Feststellung notwendige Lehre des Werts noch gar nicht betrachtet zu haben, deutet er mit der unhinterfragten Übernahme des Zitats von Burkett schon an, dass sein Verständnis des Werts eben von #MichaelHeinrichs stammt und somit der kurz'schen Interpretation diametral entgegensteht. An der Wertkritig selbst rüttelt er derweil wenig.

Das Buch ist aber trotzdem sehr lesenswert und ich bin auch noch nicht ganz fertig. Also vielleicht kriegt er ja noch die Kurve. 😉

*** zum Beispiel Reicht die Verschuldung Deutschlands heute bis nahezu 2075, wir müssen also noch 52 Jahre arbeiten um das jetzt schon ausgegebene Geld wieder reinzuholen. 2030 könnte es zum Beispiel schon bis 2150 dauern und 2050 bis ins Jahr 2200 oder gar 2300. Es ist offensichtlich, dass das nicht endlos aufrecht erhalten werden kann.