Marx and the Concept of Historical Time · 第 175 页

Originary and capitalist accumulation cannot be conflated with one another,¹³² but this should not distract our attention from the extent to which these are densely interwoven, and therefore indissociable, social processes. Bonefeld’s work argues this point consistently and persuasively.¹³³ It underscores originary accumulation as a ‘permanently’ and ‘constantly’ reproduced accumulation which is, variously, ‘the condition and presupposition of capital’s existence’, ‘the foundation of…capitalist social relations and thus the social constitution through which the exploitation of labour subsists’, and ‘the presupposition of capital and the result of its reproduction.’¹³⁴ ‘In short’, Bonefeld argues, ‘primitive accumulation is the social constitution of capitalist social relations.’¹³⁵ There are two dimensions of his work which must be highlighted here, because they directly bear, as we will shortly consider, on the relationship between originary accumulation and the production of historical time. The first is Bonefeld’s use of Hegel’s concept of sublation [Aufhebung], the way in which he makes use of the three meanings sublation registers and which stand in contradiction to one another – (1) to raise/lift up, (2) to destroy/abolish, and (3) to preserve/maintain – so as to grasp the constitutive relation between originary and capitalist accumulation. Echoing Marx’s statement in the Grundrisse that ‘once developed historically, capital itself creates the conditions of its existence (not as conditions for its arising, but as results of its being)’¹³⁶, Bonefeld maintains that the principle ‘of primitive accumulation, i.e. separation, is aufgehoben in the social constitution of capitalist accumulation, and figures now no longer as its historical becoming but as the result of accumulation, a result that capital has to pose continuously to reproduce itself.’¹³⁷ Therefore, the second dimension is that originary accumulation is constitutive of the commodity-form as the dominant social form within capitalism, and hence constitutive of the ‘fetish character’ of the commodity. It is in this context that Bonefeld writes:

¹²⁹ Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwert, Dritter Teil, 309, 268 (Theories of Surplus-Value, Part 3, 315, 272).

¹³⁰ Marx, Grundrisse, 462.

¹³¹ De Angelis, ‘Marx and primitive accumulation: The continuous character of capital’s “enclosures”’, 6.

¹³² See footnote 126.

¹³³ With ‘The Permanence of Primitive Accumulation: Commodity Fetishism and Social Constitution’, see also Werner Bonefeld, ‘History and Social Constitution: Primitive Accumulation is not Primitive’, The Commoner, Debate 1 (March 2002), http://www.commoner.org.uk/debbonefeld01.pdf (accessed 23 May 2015), Werner Bonefeld, ‘Class Struggle and the Permanence of Primitive Accumulation’, Common Sense 8 (November 1988), 54-66, and Werner Bonefeld, Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy: On Subversion and Negative Reason (London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), specifically Chapter 4: ‘Capital and Labour: Primitive Accumulation and the Force of Value’.

¹³⁴ Bonefeld, ‘The Permanence of Primitive Accumulation: Commodity Fetishism and Social Constitution’, 1-2.

¹³⁵ Ibid. 2.

175