表现(利润率)和隐藏(劳动价格，wage116)从个别工人那里榨取剩余劳动，从而产生潜在的剩余价值。这种榨取既是前瞻性的，又是追溯性的117，它与把剩余劳动同社会必要劳动对立起来的意义相适应。在黑格尔模式中，这里的基本点是，“本质关系”抽象劳动不仅是存在的，而且是表现(Erscheinung)和表象(Schein)，因为它本身就是建立在必要劳动和剩余劳动的双重关系之上的。抽象劳动时间同时实现了这样一个事实，即在资本主义内部，“剩余劳动和必要劳动是混合在一起的”118，以及剩余劳动只不过是“强迫劳动”这一事实。 119
因此，我们面临的辩证法不是“必要劳动和剩余劳动的辩证法”(没有这样的东西)，而是在资本主义内部，必要劳动本身的辩证法。这种辩证法在两个关键方面不同于抽象劳动和具体劳动之间的辩证法。首先，如前所述，这种辩证法产生于同一种劳动和时间的两种不同表现。其次，更重要的是，这种辩证法的结构在本质上是不同的。具体劳动是抽象劳动作为抽象劳动的内部和外部生产出来的(这是活劳动作为资本的外部生产出来的方式，因为它是生产过程的内部生产出来的)，剩余劳动是作为必要劳动的内部和外部生产出来的。换句话说，如果资本主义的一个决定性特征是剩余决定必然性，那么之所以如此，是因为剩余劳动同时决定自己为必要劳动的内部劳动(从除劳动力以外的一切商品生产的观点来看)和外部劳动(从劳动力生产的观点来看)。因此，使价值转化为剩余价值成为可能的生产过程的客观条件，不仅表现为，而且被设定为剩余价值本身的结果。120因此，“价值……为了重新实现它自己而必须采取的特殊形式.
116 Wage-labour always consists of paid and unpaid labour' (Marx, Grundrisse, 574), and at the same time, in wage-laboureven surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid.' (Marx, Capital 1, 680).
117 In other words, the commodification of labour-power chronologically precedes the labour-process, but the exchange of labour-power for the wage is only actual (the worker is only paid) after this process.
118 Ibid. 346. Marx’ s statement that capital did not invent surplus-labour’ (Ibid. 344) is misleading. It is true that within the corvée system the necessary labour which the Wallachian peasant performs for his own maintenance is distinctly marked off from his surplus-labour on behalf of the boyar' (Ibid. 346), but this surplus-labour is not just the unhidden predecessor of surplus-labour within capitalism, as Marx' s analysis of the working-day [der Arbęitstag] suggests. The various forms of feudal surplus-labour are fundamentally different from the kind of ‘surplus-labour' which characterises capitalism. If anything, and just like the relation beţween abstract labour and labour in general, surplus-labour within capitalism is the condition of thinkingsurplus-labour' transhistorically.
119 Marx, Grundrisse, 324.
120 the values he [the capitalist] gave in that exchange [the wage for living labour capacity] were not values which he originally put into circulation out of his own funds; they were, rather, objectified alien labour which he appropriated without giving any equivalent whatsoever, and which he now re-exchanges for alien living labour.' Ibid. 457.
125