{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title":"Marx and the Concept of Historical Time","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","id":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","uuid":"b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title":"Marx and the Concept of Historical Time","normalized_title":"marxandtheconceptofhistoricaltime","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":200,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Marx%20and%20the%20Concept%20of%20Historical%20Time","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/b1ad407a-d523-4f8b-bd50-238767f146d6/search"},"page":{"printed_page":105,"pdf_page":109,"physical_index":109,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"bd62ccbdc3bca5261bb4222465f637a4359238df8601d158802d7f424fef0b59"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"对应于资本主义特有的劳动的双重性质:即“具体的有用劳动”(konkretentzlicher劳动)，或生产使用价值的社会个人形式的劳动，和“抽象人类劳动”(抽象menschliche劳动)，或生产交换价值的纯粹社会形式的劳动。这两种社会形式的劳动并不是指两种独立的或可区分的行为，而是指商品决定的社会中同一劳动的两个方面。27在某种程度上，它是由使用价值的生产来定义的，而使用价值作为资本主义特有的经济范畴的地位仍然是模糊的28，某种程度的历史不确定性似乎与具体劳动有关。但是，当这种“以特定形式和有一定目的的人类劳动力的支出”(29)被考虑——相当必要地考虑——它与抽象劳动的辩证关系时，“劳动作为劳动力的支出，不管它以何种“有用的”方式进行消费”30，很快就可以看出，只有从劳动力商品化的角度才能理解劳动力。抽象劳动——马克思在这一点上是毫不含糊的——不是一个超越历史的有效范畴。它作为“活劳动”生产交换价值的力量，使它成为“资本主义的命脉”31，而且仅仅是资本主义的命脉。正如彼得·奥斯本(PeterOsborne)所阐述的那样，“这种力量………因此不是从根本上’而是历史本体论的:它是整个资本生产过程的历史本体论产物。”32为了从另一个角度加强这一点，在超历史的(“具体的”)和历史的(“抽象的”)劳动概念之间的辩证法一一也就是说，在所有生产方式共有的社会劳动形式和特定生产方式特有的社会劳动形式之间的辩证法一一的想法是荒谬的。“具体劳动”在历史上是资本主义所特有的。33简而言之，“使用”、“交换”和“劳动”可以是\n\n27 Postone, Time, Labor, and Social Domination, 144. For Marx, therefore, the commodity does not contain two different sorts of labour; the same labour, however, is determined as different and as opposed to itself.’ Quoted in ibid.\n\n28 The ambiguity within Marx' s account of use-value is far more pervasive than that within his account of labour-power. In the Grundrisse, the 1861-63 Manuscripts, and the Marginal Notes on Wagner, use-value is characterised as a decidedly economic and historical category, whereas a number of passages in the first volume of Capital and the Contribution would seem to suggest that it is a category outside the sphere of investigation of political economy.’ Marx, Contribution, 28. Marx should be critiqued on this front. Usevalue, this thesis maintains, is only intelligible as an economic and historical category specific to capitalism. Use-value, which Marx too often conflates with utility' [Nutzen], is internal to value, even as it is produced as exterior to it. That is, use-value stands opposed to exchange-value, but only within the valueform. This will be further developed in our analysis of the dialectic of concrete and abstract labour-time.\n\n29Marx, Capital 1, 137. Emphasis added.\n\n30 Karl Marx, Randglossen zu Adolph Wagner's Lehrbuch der politischen Ökonomie [1879-80], in Marx and Engels, MEW, Band 19 (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1987), 370.\n\n31 Marx, Capital 1, 1007.\n\n32 Osborne, 'Marx and the philosophy of time', 19.\n\n33 Werner Bonefeld is mistaken in his position that figuring concrete labour as a specifically capitalist form of labor' amounts to an absurd notion.’ Werner Bonefeld, Abstract labour: Against its nature and on its time’ , Capital & Clașs 34:2 (2010), 270. Categorically, in its meaning as the dialectical other of abstract labour, concrete labour' is a specifically capitalist form of labour.\n\n105","previous_page":104,"next_page":106}