使托姆巴佐斯的马克思时代走向终结的危机一—“结构性危机”——并没有为我们提供解决这个问题的办法。在承诺“检验总资本与历史时间之间的概念联系”37的框架下，这种危机概念38实际上模糊了资本与历史时间之间的关系39，从而排除了资本与历史时间之间的关系
34 Pierre Vilar, Marxist History, a History in the Making: Towards a Dialogue with Althusser,’ New Left Review I/80 (July/August 1973), 105.
35 Osborne, A sudden topicality: Marx, Nietzsche and the politics of crisis’, 21. Osborne continues: crisis “theory" is thus in principle inaequate to thinking the historico-political meaning of crises – and this includes Marx' s own account (or “theory" ) of capitalist crises, however central to such a thinking it might be. Hence my reluctance to think of Marx as a crisis “theorist" , with respect to the politics of crises, which was his ultimate concern.' Ibid.
36 For Osborne, with regard to the temporality of crisis, the cyclical character of crises of accumulation tends to instil less a sense of possibility than of repetition. This serves to reinforce the main form of temporal abstraction associated with the experience of commodities in capitalist societies: “the new". The periodic character of crisis and the commodity-form each produce modes of experience of temporal abstraction that undermine or erode the historical experience of crises and, thereby, function to repress the political possibilities they contain.' Ibid. 24.
37 Tombazos, Time in Marx, 275.
38 See ibid., Chapter 24, The Struçtural Crises', 291-305, which, along with its appendix, does little in the way of constructing a concept of structural crisis’ as an abnormal or extraordinary’ (ibid. 274) crisis of capitalism, instead offering an empirical history of business cycles over roughly the pas 150 years. Why structural crises are ‘structural’ , and intelligible as such as against periodical crises’ (which would equally seem to be part of the structure of capitalist accumulation), is thus left at a descriptive level.
39 Tombazos’ s grasp of the relationship between capital and historical time comes out of his analysis of structural crises’ . He states: far from acting in a social environment that it only conquers, capital produces its objective contents that are this environment. It produces its own history. Each partiçular stage of capitalism, each recovery from a structural crisis, is the peace that capital concludes with itself.' Ibid. 300. After Hegel, this correspondence between “subjectivity" and“objectivity" is not that
191