Cities for Profit: The Real Estate Turn in Asia’s Urban Politics
Cities for Profit: The Real Estate Turn in Asia’s Urban Politics
复制标题
城市谋利：亚洲城市政治中的房地产转向
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gabriel Fauveaud
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gabriel Fauveaud
《资本论》第一卷他遵循李比希思想的变化（pp。192，197），并重新评价了詹姆斯约翰斯顿对北美农业的总结（第201页）。齐藤通过以前无法获得的1868年笔记本，能够进一步跟踪马克思思想的进展。马克思追随亨利、查尔斯·凯里、欧根·杜林和阿尔伯特·兰格对李比希的批评。与一位批评家卡尔·弗拉斯（Carl Fraas）有关，马克思特别感兴趣的是理解“物理学派是如何与化学学派相对立的”（第229页，着重号为原文）。马克思注意到弗拉斯对风化和气候条件影响土壤肥力的理解。在齐藤的文本中，我们发现了马克思笔记的一瞥，作为马克思生态方法的进一步证据。基于弗拉斯的工作，马克思意识到生态退化对气候的影响。文明的发展改变了当地的气候环境，导致现有植物生命的条件减少。241-42）。对于对动物福利感兴趣的研究者，马克思评论了资本主义农业中动物的待遇。马克思在他的笔记中写道，“恶心！”在提到动物育种实践意味着增加动物的肉的数量，同时缩短成熟的时间（pp. 208-209）。总的来说，齐藤展示了一个马克思，他在对资本的分析中故意融入了生态批判。马克思的思想，即使在土壤肥力方面是“乐观的"，也是在他的思想进程中以及与他当时所从事的辩论有关的背景下形成的。斋藤对马克思的描绘既没有在两极立场（哲学与唯物主义）之间摇摆，也没有在他最初的洞察力中坚定不移。他所呈现的是随着时间的推移对研究过程的更细致入微和更现实的描绘。除了马克思的生态方法的起源，齐藤给读者一个不同的视角到马克思如何进行研究，并形成他的结论。这本书当然是感兴趣的研究人员在政治经济学的环境，但它也有价值的读者好奇的细节马克思的研究方法。引用
the first volume of Capital. He followed the changes in Liebig’s thought (pp. 192, 197) and reevaluated James Johnston’s summary of North American agriculture (p. 201). Saito, through the previously unavailable 1868 notebooks, is able to follow the progress of Marx’s thought even further. Marx followed criticisms of Liebig by Henry Charles Carey, Eugen Dühring, and Albert Lange. In relation to one critic, Carl Fraas, Marx was particularly interested in understanding how ‘‘The physical school is pitted against the chemical’’ (p. 229, emphasis in original). Marx noted Fraas’s understanding of weathering and climatic conditions as they affected soil fertility (p. 231). In Saito’s text, we find glimpses into Marx’s notebooks as further evidence of Marx’s ecological approach. Based on Fraas’s work, Marx was aware of the effect of ecological degradation on climate. The development of civilizations altered the local climatic environment, causing diminished conditions for existing plant life (pp. 241–42). For researchers interested in animal welfare, Marx comments on the treatment of animals in capitalist agriculture. In his notes, Marx writes, ‘‘Disgusting!’’ in reference to animal breeding practices meant to increase the amount of meat on the animal while shortening the time to maturity (pp. 208–209). Overall, Saito presents a Marx who deliberately incorporated an ecological critique in his analysis of capital. Marx’s thought, even when ‘‘optimistic’’ in terms of soil fertility, is contextualized in the progress of his thinking and in relation to the debates in which he was engaged at the time. Saito’s portrait of Marx is neither oscillating between polar positions (philosophical versus materialist) nor unwavering in his initial insight. What he presents is a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of the research process over time. Beyond the origins of Marx’s ecological approach, Saito gives the reader a different perspective into how Marx conducted research and formed his conclusions. This book is certainly of interest to researchers in the political economy of the environment, but it also has value for readers curious about the details of Marx’s research method. References