证明“一般劳动”依赖于抽象劳动是一回事，把抽象劳动作为历史加以推动则是另一回事。如果资本在本质上是“运动”、“运动”和“过程中的统一”，那么以后就应当把资本理解为历史性的运动、运动和过程中的统一。而且，如果自我增殖的价值，即资本本身的价值，资本是自身过程的“综合主体”，“在这个过程中，它交替地取得和失去货币形式和商品形式，但又通过这一切变化保持和扩大自己”，那么，这个主体的全面性(这个主体作为它自己的过程的统一—一总体化的和时间化的运动的方式，从而在这些过程中的行为的统一性)必须成为它的历史性的力量。现在应该清楚的是，我们所说的“历史化”并不是指“历史化”一一将资本理解为一个“历史上特定的”主体(至少通常是这个表达的意思)，也不是指将这个主体置于其“特定的时间和地点”，例如在19世纪60年代的英国(这是历史决定论);相反，我们指的是这样一种方式，即作为一个综合主体,作为它所处的过程中的行为的统一，资本被历史化了，它这样做的方式构成了思考马克思的现代后启蒙时代历史概念的条件。⁸这种历史化是思考“历史化”的条件，因此也是资本主义的历史专一性。资本(这里我们指的是“一般资本”，或“普遍性”9)以这样一种方式使这些运动变得总化和时代化
6Marx, Grundrisse, 620.
7Marx, Capital 1, 255. I am indebted to Peter Osborne for the translation of übergreifendes Subjekt’ as comprehensive subject' , as opposed to, Ben Fowkes' s dominant subject' (übergreifendes literally means overarching' or ‘all-grasping' ). Fowkes' s translation lends itself too easily to the notion that the human subject is externally dominated' by the subject that is value (this is Postone' s abstract domination' ), when in fact the point is that human subjectivation is internal to value (in capitalism, the human is (predominantly) a subject because there is value). Living labour is internal to the value-for; labour-power is used. And the human consumer is predominantly a subject because there is circulation: as the subject predominant [übergreifend] over the different phases of this movement, as value sustaining and multiplying itself in it, as the subject of these metamorphoses proceeding in a circular course -as a spiral, as an expanding circle -çapital is circųulating capital.' Marx, Grundrisse, 620. Martin Nicolaus' s translation of übergreifend as predominant’ lacks the overarching connotations of 'comprehensive’ , but it is preferable to Fowkes’ s dominant'
8 The focus of this chapter is the relationship between capital and Marx' s particular post-Enlightenment concept of history, but the ultimate question which Marx poses for the philosophy of history is whether capital constitutes the condition of thinking every post-Enlightenment concept of history (from roughly the mid-eighteenth century onwards). In other words, does capital constitute the very possibility of the category of history, as conceived by the likes of Kant, Hegel, Conorcet, Comte, Dilthey, Heidegger, Collingwood, Sartre and Fukuyama? Constitute the very possibility of the collective singular form of Geschichte, which since around 1780 can be conceived as history in and for itself in the absence of an associated subject or object' ? Koselleck, Future's Past: on the Semantics of Historical Time, 236. Marx does not feature in Koselleck, hence the latter never asks whether capital is the subject of historyin the absence of an associated subject or object'
9As Roberto Fineschi says, in Marx, “capital in general" [Kapital im Allgemeinen] and “universality” [Allgemeinheit] mean the same thing.' Roberto Fineschi, On Hegel' s Methodological Legacy in Marx' , in Marx's Capital and Hegeľ's Logic: A Reexamination, 140, ft. 2. Whilst these çategories only appear in Marx’ s work until the end of 1862, Fineschi demonstrates that capital in general' actually
136