Transcription
I understand you want a translation of the provided Japanese text into English, following specific rules. Here is the translation:
Mr. Saito, I think he would dislike it if I said it this way, but I'll say it deliberately. Mr. Saito is strong in competition. That is because he won in competition. In a sense, it's because he won in competition. And not in the petty market of Japan, but with the academic ability to enter the University of Tokyo, he went to America, and moreover, to a place with very strong liberal arts. Then, when he went to Germany, not to the Free University of Berlin, but to Humboldt University, a place that properly inherits the Eastern tradition, he studied there, won properly in competition within that environment, and then took the powerful Isaac Deutscher Prize in the left-wing market. After that, he came to Japan and won, didn't he? People who win, whether they study the left or the right, are fine. Then they think, "I won. I'm happy with this," and that's usually the end of it. But he, truly, I think he believes that although he won within this system, the competitive process itself was not a meaningful process. So, I have been following and reading what Mr. Saito writes for a long time. Yes. And I thought his "Humanity" was very good. I thought it was a little dangerous during the Marxist period. He was originally strongly influenced by the ideas of the Hungarian philosopher György Lukács, but if you misuse them even a little, they can become extremely elitist, like avant-garde thought. [Sniff] [Sniff] And in the opposite direction of thought is Rosa Luxemburg. With her, it's like, "We are being drawn in from the outside, so we must reflect," which leads to excessive self-negation. [Sniff] Yes. The former has a very elitist aspect, and the latter, being drawn in by others, means that there is a fundamental problem with our very existence, so we must self-critique and negate from the outside. If we adjust these, I was very worried for a time that it might turn into something like the radicalization or corporatization of the past, or some other method of class struggle. But recently, looking at the insight of "Humanity," and considering the European environmental issues and all that, he is confronting the very front-line ideology that supports Trump with tremendous intellectual power and has arrived at an interesting juncture again. I think so. At the same time, when I see Mr. Saito's various publications, for example, the issue of the state will be a major theme going forward. For example, regarding the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's violation of Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Fundamental Law of Education, people have filed objections, but Mr. Saito said, "Isn't that wrong? Isn't it strange to put that person on that ship?" But my perspective is a little different. What I did was, there is also the question of whether the state or society judges political neutrality. [Sniff] Therefore, I believe that first, we need to clarify the entire process of what happened in schools, which are partial societies, and then, if there is any illegality or fault, we need to inspect that part of education. I am a little distant from that idea, that the state is not neutral at all, and that it is extremely dangerous when the state intervenes. So, strangely enough, I am seen as a conservative, a statist, but I am very sensitive to the state directly intervening with citizens or intermediate organizations. [Sniff] I understand. I understand. This time, in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," the state was not discussed at all, and there was criticism and issues regarding that. And this time, in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," it is more about the fact that at moments of crisis, what we are about to enter is, in a sense, a war economy. Yes. And when that happens, a purely laissez-faire approach that entrusts everything to the market at times of great crisis will only widen the gap and become problematic, so the state must intervene in the market at moments of crisis. That's exactly what economic security is all about. Yes. And if we were to do that, for example, in Japan now, we should really be thinking about how to achieve food self-sufficiency or energy self-sufficiency. If we are increasing defense spending so much, this is the most important thing we should be doing, but there are also issues like why we are not doing it. On the other hand, I think it is unavoidable to establish such economic plans. By doing so, we will introduce socialist policies. And some readers, especially from the right, will say, "Isn't that statism? Isn't it a return to Soviet-style totalitarianism where the state decides what to produce?" I think such criticism will emerge, and it would be good if there were intellectual heavyweights who could properly address such criticisms. I agree that more theoretical arguments would be good. Are they starting to emerge now? Yes. Well, in the comments, as soon as they see the word "plan," there is a certain rejection, like, "Isn't that just a rehash of the Soviet Union?" Yes. You know, it's natural that the state doesn't appear in the discussion of Marx's "Das Kapital" for a reason. To put it technically, there's the problem of planning. The very large foundation that Marx's "Das Kapital" is based on is Ricardo, whose work is "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation." However, "Das Kapital" does not discuss taxation. That's because it doesn't discuss the state. So, the state, when it levies taxes, needs a powerful apparatus behind it, doesn't it? Therefore, Mr. Saito Kohei's current state theory, at the same time, I think the issue of consumption tax will reappear within the next two years. This time, the government is saying they will increase it by 1%. We need to consider tax issues on food and everything comprehensively, so the issue of financial resources will come up. So, what's amazing about Mr. Saito is that he has an ideal communist world in the future, and everyone should strive towards it. That's fine, but we can't get there all at once. How do we get out of the current crisis? It will involve the state exercising violence. And then there's the problem of rulers and the ruled, which the state brings about. These are things that Mr. Saito tends to shy away from. To address them is to be intellectually honest. Yes. But if we don't, people like Thiel and Musk, whose names have come up several times today in tech, are now intervening in the state. The state has become completely a puppet of capital, or rather, they are monopolizing the technology for domestic security or for waging wars abroad. With their immense power, they are even transforming the nature of the state with all sorts of data. So, the right wing, too, must present a different approach to how to direct this talk of technology and the state. Otherwise, simply saying "AI is dangerous" or "Let's regulate AI more," or "The state doing things like vaccinations during the pandemic is also dangerous, so let's stop it," will only lead to AI and robots and tech companies doing whatever they want, and we will be swept away. I have that sense of crisis. Looking at the current commentators in Japan and the right wing, they are still stuck at the level of "I don't like the My Number card," which is no match for the techno-libertarians in Silicon Valley. Yes. That's right. So, what I am very hopeful about is people like Mr. Yasuno from Team Mirai. He is not a techno-libertarian. Not at all. [Sniff] So, it's interesting that someone who is not a techno-libertarian is coming forward with the issue of technology. I think Mr. Saito agrees, don't you? I do. So, how will he, who has a very flexible mind and is very humane, proceed? Yes. If there is cooperation between such people and Mr. Saito, perhaps the values of the right wing might unexpectedly enter through people like those in Team Mirai, who hold the opposite values. I have touched upon this several times in interviews and discussions since publishing my book. However, the reaction from the right wing is often, "That's dangerous," or "That's a thought of some kind of neo-laissez-faire elitism." But I think that Mr. Yasuno, as you mentioned, has a humane aspect, and he doesn't necessarily hold techno-libertarian or socialist ideologies. However, the challenges they are considering, such as the advancement of democracy using technology, are important. It is important, and it is a problem that we all need to think about how the right wing can use that potential to create a society. And if that becomes concrete, then people will think, "If Elon Musk and others are using various digital technologies, we need to catch up with how they are used." Those who follow such movements on platforms like PIB Bot and NewsPicks are actually not truly believing in them. They would probably embrace a more humane, more sustainable, fairer, and more enjoyable path if it were available. The fact that they can't present that is simply the fault of the mother's egg. That's right. So, conversely, what I consider to be modern proletarian literature is something like "You can never see Tokyo Tower from this room in a housing complex." I think that's very much like proletarian literature. However, proletarian literature also strongly emphasizes the need to depict hope. Like in "The Sun Shines Over the Soviet Union," where they went there and it was an ideal place in the end. [Sniff] In contrast to this, "Humanity" is more like the latter, depicting the terrible world, like the cement and the letters from the middle of the sea, as described by people like Yamagiwa and others who go to the sea. Yes. Mr. Horie Takafumi often says, "It's amazing that you can write so much interesting material on such trivial topics." But even those who watch on NewsPicks are all educated to a certain extent and have decent jobs. [Sniff] They are quite ambitious and working hard. But when I think that the young people who appear here, like those in Kouenji, are not so different from this, doesn't it make you sad? Yes. But we need to be careful. People who are working hard in the current situation, trying to adapt to their circumstances, for example, by using NewsPicks to learn skills for survival and to win competitions, will probably not have a very happy future. I think they all realize that. So, even if they hear Mr. Saito's talk, they won't change immediately. But perhaps there is another way of thinking. It might be a dream, but it's a way of living that consumes less energy. A way of living that is more enjoyable and more relaxed. Isn't there such a way? It's a very important question. So, while NewsPicks is naturally watched by people who have survived in business and are thinking about being ambitious, Mr. Saito and I are also people who have deviated from that trend. I hope that by watching what such people say, they will realize something. So, in that sense, I think it's important that I appear on ReHacK. They are interested in politics. People who deliberately watch ReHacK, who watch a broadcast that lasts for several hours, like Mr. Tamaki broadcasting live until morning, are probably looking at politics as entertainment, but they are people who are thinking a lot about politics. And to say that they are just enjoying themselves without thinking, or that they are being swayed by populism, is, I think, a mistake. Rather, they are thinking hard from their perspectives as workers, students, housewives, and so on, and judging whether the politicians' words and actions are good or bad. In my book, I want to give more of these people the decision-making power about what to create and what kind of society we all want to build. Planned economies, in the past, in the Soviet Union, bureaucrats decided the plans, and it became top-down, like an avant-garde. But capitalism, in reality, is the same. People like Elon Musk decide what to build. They draw subsidies from the state, build data centers, and monopolize all the ultimate benefits. If they don't like something, they buy it out. In such a situation, the masses have never been empowered. But shouldn't the right wing say, "Let's give more power to the masses"? Instead, they say, "They are swayed by populism and are deceived by hate speech and other things." I don't think that will spread. Rather, if we create political and economic mechanisms that they can truly participate in, the world will surely become better, more enjoyable, and more convenient than it is now. I have always had that kind of trust. Criticizing populism and saying, "The masses are..." and dismissing the masses, then, as in "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Sword and the Blossom," Japan succeeded in the Meiji Restoration because it didn't listen to the people. It was good because of that. What did it do? It responded to what the people wanted. Opposition to compulsory education. Opposition to the liberation of discriminated people. By ignoring the people who were advocating for these things, and sometimes strongly appealing for them in the form of petitions, and by not listening to the people, it was good. If we take the stance of criticizing populism and say, "They engage in hate speech," then we will return to that, and conversely, we will end up recognizing bureaucratic dictatorship. So, I think it would be good to delve a little more into the book. We need to re-examine the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an extremely important issue. Why? Because, as we discussed with Elon Musk, if you look closely, capitalists who possess such massive systems are dictating the current capitalist system. Yes. For example, when it comes to cars, what kind of car we ride in is determined by Toyota, Honda, or Nissan. We can only choose within the framework they set. So, in that sense, ultimately, the power of dictatorship is held by someone who has power. If there is a major shift, at least there must be some mechanism to suppress those who held power for a certain period of time. This is a natural part of system transformation. But since everyone is not truly participating in that sense, Marx uses the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." What we need to realize is that our current society is ultimately a "bourgeois dictatorship." Elon Musk, and before him, the services created by GAFAM, are criticized by David Graeber as well. Ultimately, what they created are entertainment services that keep us glued to our smartphones, watching useless videos or liking useless photos. They have not created any true innovation, like a "door anywhere" or technology to go to Mars. Yet, they have made enormous profits. What have they done? They have continuously invested in making the iPhone 11, 12, and 13. In the process, they have become richer, but our lives have only changed slightly, like Gmail getting a new app. In essence, nothing has changed, and we have spent the last 20 years like this. Yes. So, in the face of such a situation, we should be asking why this has happened. We shouldn't just be saying "Japan is amazing, America is amazing, GAFAM is amazing." That's right. Ultimately, haven't GAFAM made our lives much more convenient? Rather, our work has increased. So, what is the problem?