중공이 두려워하는 청년층의 탕핑주의/ 중공판 이생망(이번 생은 망했다) 박상후의 문명개화 현재 중국공산당이 가장 두려워하는 청년층의 탕핑주의를 심층 조명했습니다. 속된말로 나자빠진다는 의미의 탕핑은 욕망을 자진 거세해버린 청년층의 생활태도를 의미하는 키워드입니다. 열심히 노력하는 것은 자본가에 도움이 되는 일일 뿐 스스로는 스트레스로 병만 얻을 뿐이라면서 매사를 포기해 버리는 청년층의 심리상태는 중국공산당에 대한 가장 심각한 체제위협입니다. 한국어로 배째라, 이생망(이번 생은 망했다)에 해당되는게 탕핑입니다. 중공의 거의 모근 사회계층은 중국공산당에 있어서 잘라도 계속 자라나 수확해야 하는 부추에 해당합니다. 때문에 이들이 나자빠져 버리는 것은 공산당이 착취한 분량이 줄어드는 것을 의미합니다. 고학력층들도 아무런 희망없이 근로, 취업, 진학, 결혼, 육아, 승진 의욕을 접은채 되도록 움직이지 않고 세월이 좋아질때까지 무위도식으로 버티자는 심리상태인 탕핑을 자세히 설명했습니다. https://youtu.be/AxAj6VhQnOM 시 황제의 역사 퇴행과 수천년을 내려온 관료제, 그리고 상상을 초월하는 관료들의 부패, 이에 희망을 잃은 청년들이 들어눕고 있다. 한일의 히키코모리와도 약간은 유사한 점이 있다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 한강 대학생 故손정민 친구 측 “8시간 동안 기억 없다… 억측 ‘지나쳐’” 반박 12두7미감시원 댓글 저 변호사란 사람 어떻게 변호사가 되었나 의심스럽다. 7시간 블랙 되었다가 께어나 보니 사건 현장은 정확하게 기억한다. 와 참 대단하네 / 일베 --->손정민 사건이 이렇게 문제가 되는 건, 일반 시민들이 이 살인 사건을 통해 정의가 실행되지 않는다는 것을 실감했기 때문이다. 이미 박 대통령 탄핵 때 정의는 무너졌지만, 그때는 언론에 속아 시시비비를 모르는 시민들이 많다. 하지만 그렇게 자신에게도 일어날 수 있는 사건에서 정의가 무시되고 있다는 사실에, 시민들이 정권의 부도덕성을 절실히 느끼고 있다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 영화 '기생충'의 대사 "다 계획이 있구나" 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/AMTTP-wWQNI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주관주의의 탄생으로 국가주권주의의 허점이 드러났다. 주관주의 학파(오스트리아 학파)가 경제학을 통해 인간 행동의 모든 영역을 탐구할 수 있다는 것을 보여주자, 이에 대한 반발은 이성 자체를 의심하기에 이르렀다. 과거 철학자들은 인간을 정부의 관점에서 바라보았고, 정치 행동의 규범, 즉 통치술을 확정하려 했다. 그들의 생각에 이상 사회를 구성하는데 필요한 요소는 훌륭한 군주와 도덕적인 시민들이었다. 1870년대에 주관주의 학파가 나타나기 전에, 경제학의 반대자들은 비록 경제적 법칙이 있기는 하지만, 그것은 단지 물질적 부의 추구에만 적용된다고 주장했다. 비물질적 목표에서는 국가가 개입할 여지가 충분하다고 믿은 것이다. 하지만 주관주의 학파가 나타나면서 그런 생각이 틀렸다는 게 증명되었다. Subjectivism Exposed the Limits of Political Will. Statists Hated It. Gordon In Human Action, Mises suggests that opposition to economic theory intensified as the theory developed. When the subjectivist school showed that economics isn’t limited to a separate sphere, but rather that all human action can be studied scientifically, the opposition went so far as to challenge reason itself. Before economic theory got started, philosophers studied political and economic affairs from a normative standpoint. They tried to say how society should be organized, in the same way that they devised accounts of how human beings ought to act. They looked at human things from the viewpoint of government. They were intent upon establishing rules of political action, a technique, as it were, of government and statesmanship. Speculative minds drew ambitious plans for a thorough reform and reconstruction of society. The more modest were satisfied with a collection and systematization of the data of historical experience. But all were fully convinced that there was in the course of social events no such regularity and invariance of phenomena as had already been found in the operation of human reasoning and in the sequence of natural phenomena. They did not search for the laws of social cooperation because they thought that man could organize society as he pleased. If social conditions did not fulfill the wishes of the reformers, if their utopias proved unrealizable, the fault was seen in the moral failure of man. Social problems were considered ethical problems. What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens. With righteous men any utopia might be realized. (p. 605) What does Mises mean? Suppose that you think, as many do, that employers should pay their workers a “living wage,” enabling them to support a family on one income. If the employers do not do so, they are denounced as greedy. The presupposition here is that whether to offer a wage of this kind is entirely up to the employers. In what sense might it not be? Surely, an employer is free to make an offer, and the employee to accept or reject it. But according to economic theory, workers earn the discounted marginal value product of their labor. In brief, workers earn what their labor contributes to the value of what they make. If a firm pays a “living wage” above this, it will lose money and will tend to be supplanted by other firms. If a law requires that firms pay a living wage, the economy will be disrupted. There are, then, regularities that limit what political action can achieve. If political actors disregard these laws, they will be unable to get what they want. The statists could not answer the arguments of the economists but instead challenged their motives. This challenge took two forms. First, it was claimed that the economists were not impartial scholars but were in the pay of the capitalists, who want to pay workers as little as they can get away with. (Such accusations are far from ended: the accusation is a principal theme of Nancy MacLane’s Democracy in Chains [2017].) Second, detractors of economics maintained that there is no such thing as objective reason. All human reasoning is biased, with class and race most often declared to be the source of this bias. Marxism asserts that a man's thinking is determined by his class affiliation. Every social class has a logic of its own. The product of thought cannot be anything else than an “ideological disguise” of the selfish class interests of the thinker. It is the task of a “sociology of knowledge” to unmask philosophies and scientific theories and to expose their “ideological” emptiness. Economics is a “bourgeois” makeshift, the economists are “sycophants” of capital. Only the classless society of the socialist utopia will substitute truth for “ideological” lies. (p. 606; the “sociology of knowledge” refers to the work of Karl Mannheim and Max Scheler) Mises is careful to avoid a counterattack. If he is trying to discredit the opponents of economics by calling attention to their motives, i.e., their wish to promote statist panaceas, can’t he also be accused of doing the same thing as the statists? They said that the economists are biased; he says the critics are biased. What is the difference? He answers that he is not claiming to refute the opponents of economics by calling attention to their bias. Their arguments need to be answered on their own terms. But this does not preclude inquiry into the motives of those who advance these arguments. It is not permissible to dispose of these objections merely on the ground of the political motives which inspired them. No scientist is entitled to assume beforehand that a disapprobation of his theories must be unfounded because his critics are imbued by passion and party bias. He is bound to reply to every censure without any regard to its underlying motives or its background. (p. 607) Before the rise of the subjectivist school in the 1870s, opponents of economics could say that even if there are binding laws of economics, these apply only to one part of human behavior, the pursuit of material wealth. The laws of economics, according to this position, do not apply to nonmaterial goals, and this offers ample scope for state action. After the 1870s, this response collapsed. There is a general science that establishes truth about all human actions. This more sweeping claim has elicited more strident attacks on economics. For a long time men failed to realize that the transition from the classical theory of value to the subjective theory of value was much more than the substitution of a more satisfactory theory of market exchange for a less satisfactory one…. It is much more than merely a theory of the “economic side” of human endeavors and of man’s striving for commodities and an improvement in his material well-being. It is the science of every kind of human action. (p. 605) Mises says that the radicalism of this wholesale condemnation of economics was very soon surpassed by a still more universal nihilism. From time immemorial men in thinking, speaking, and acting had taken the uniformity and immutability of the logical structure of the human mind as an unquestionable fact. All scientific inquiry was based on this assumption. In the discussions about the epistemological character of economics, writers, for the first time in human history, denied this proposition too. (p. 605) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------