{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","title":"时间、劳动与社会统治：马克思的批判理论再阐释","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787301301517","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","id":"9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","uuid":"9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","title":"时间、劳动与社会统治：马克思的批判理论再阐释","normalized_title":"时间劳动与社会统治马克思的批判理论再阐释","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787301301517","isbns":["9787301301517","9780521565400"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":487,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%97%B6%E9%97%B4%E3%80%81%E5%8A%B3%E5%8A%A8%E4%B8%8E%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E7%BB%9F%E6%B2%BB%EF%BC%9A%E9%A9%AC%E5%85%8B%E6%80%9D%E7%9A%84%E6%89%B9%E5%88%A4%E7%90%86%E8%AE%BA%E5%86%8D%E9%98%90%E9%87%8A","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/9387edf6-76a0-49b0-871f-f45c222f04d1/search"},"page":{"printed_page":85,"pdf_page":98,"physical_index":98,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"9acf7a808a5c8ca12b530c66ce69c8211f9b47adc75d1c2e44a77eae2da6e952"},"chapter":"时间、劳动与社会统治","content":"无产阶级象征了可能的后资本主义社会这一理念，只有当我们首先依据生产资料私有制来定义资本主义，将“劳动”作为批判的出发点时，才有意义。换句话说，尽管卢卡奇的分析指出，如果想得到一个充分的现代性的批判理论的话，资本主义就不能按照传统的方式加以定义，但是，他的内在洞见却因为他依旧以这些传统的方式作为批判的出发点而被削弱。\n\n对卢卡奇的方法进行更为完整的讨论，将会以更丰富的细节来说明他对黑格尔的唯物主义挪用，是如何损害了其借由商品形式来分析理性化的历史进程的努力。然而，与其直接进行这样一种讨论，我希望仅仅展现卢卡奇与马克思在方法上的重要分歧。卢卡奇的理解，尤其是他将无产阶级界定为主客同一体这一点，常常被认为与马克思的态度相一致。②不过，他对主客同一体的理解与马克思的理论方法之间的距离，依旧和李嘉图的劳动价值论与马克思的距离一样遥远。马克思的政治经济学批判所依据的前提条件与卢卡奇的理解截然不同。在《资本论》中，马克思事实上是尝试以社会的和历史的方式去解释黑格尔试图用精神这一概念来把握的东西。然而，他的方法在根本上与卢卡奇不同，后者以肯定性的态度看待整体性，将其作为批判的出发点，并将黑格尔的主客同一体等同于无产阶级。马克思对黑格尔的历史批判，与卢卡奇对黑格尔的唯物主义挪用之间的差异，直接联系着我们所考察的两种社会批判形式之间的差异。对整体性与无产阶级的概念而言，以及更为一般地，对理解资本主义的基本性质及其历史否定而言，它产生了深刻的后果。\n\n第二章 传统马克思主义的预设前提\n\n85\n\n① Georg Lukács, \"Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat,\" in History and Class Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London, 1971), pp. 102-121, 135, 145, 151-153, 162, 175, 197-200. 关于这篇 文章的很好的讨论，见 Andrew Arato and Paul Breines, The Young Lukács and the Origins of Western Marxism (New York, 1979), pp. 111-160。\n\n② 见 Paul Piccone, General Introduction, in Andrew Arato and Eike Gebhardt, eds., The Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York, 1978), p. xvii。","previous_page":84,"next_page":86}