从资本主义地方性危机中发展出一种普遍性历史危机概念的可能性，并与之相关。然而，这正是必须做的事情，因为“危机概念的政治意义……取决于这两个层面的某种预期的衔接，取决于生产方式层面上的某种时势政治有效性，以应对周期性’危机。”40我们甚至可以说，这是思考(更不用说实现)后资本主义时代的社会和历史的可能性的唯一可能的方式。这使我们回到马克思著作中生命范畴的哲学重要性，并将其引入到政治重要性的讨论中。如果“危机”在某种程度上可以被理解为某种东西的“生命”的危机，以至于它标志着这种生命本身结束的可能性，那么，历史时间的政治(一种由资本作为思考历史的条件的理解和资本主义之后实现历史时间的过程所构成的政治)必须从资本主义对其生命周期的破坏的角度来对待资本主义反复出现的危机(无论是“正常的”还是“不正常的”)。而这个“生命周期”不仅仅是资本生命的(不可知的)持续时间，这样的危机使(但只是潜在地)资本主义的时间终结成为可能，但更根本的是，正如本文所呈现的那样，资本生命的历史化时间(这个时间本身就是衡量capitalism41)“持续时间”的本体论基础)。尽管没有围绕其呈现的政治，但这是第二卷中“社会总资本”概念的独特政治重要性
of the conceptual totality of capital with an external empirical reality, with a neutral historical time. Rather, it is the relative correspondence of the former with the objective determinations it produces.’ Ibid. Thus, capital as an “Idea" is the correspondence of a logical order of time -obeying its own immanent criteria – with historical time. This correspondence is a permanent relation of tension and conflict, a relation of sometimes hidden and sometimes evident contradiction. Crises, particularly structural crises, are violent moments of confrontation between antagonistic forces. They open up various possibilities, among which is that of a new "peace" between the "subjective side" and "objective side" of capital. This is why capitalism is a coherent system of determinations, at the same time completed and open, dynamic and in movement.' Ibid. There are two problems with this reading. First, history/historical time are reduced to the objective side’ of the dialectic of capital, the 'empirical world’ that is dialectically tied to the subjective side' -the thought' or universal reason' -of capital, wherein a mutual fertilisation' and contradictory unity' between the universal logic and particular history of capital exists. Ibid. 303. This stands against the idea of this thesis that history/historical time are the manifestations of the dialectic of capital itself -from both the standpoint of its objectivity and subjectivity. Second, Tombazos’ s concept of crisis (both periodical’ and structural') thus precludes the possibility of constructing a historical concept of crisis: the fundamentally historical character of crisis is here not simply limited to capital, but to the objective side of capital at that. The various possibilities' of crises thus become one possibility: historical repetition.
40 Osborne, A sudden topicality: Marx, Nietzsche and the politics of crisis' , 21. The two levels’ here are the historical development of the mode of production beyond its own limits, on the one hand, and political economy of capital, on the other' . Ibid. For Osborne, the failure to adhere to the disjunction between these two levels generates the quasi-theological notion of a “final" crisis of the capitalist system, as a whole, as some kind of event, rather than a process with a duration of many decades, if not centuries, appropriate to the idea of a “social" rather than a merely “political" revolution. And it is this notion that lies behind the substitution of a theory of breakdown for a (generational) politics of transformation.' Ibid.
41见第4章，脚注11。
192