{"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":106,"pdf_page":110,"physical_index":110,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"817285bc99448b4801f0734a7433950fc0a531ba6bad0900cc0ff6c59cbbaaeb"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"可以理解为超越历史的范畴，但“使用价值”和“交换价值”、“具体劳动”和“抽象劳动”却不能理解。同样，使用“大脑、肌肉、神经、手等”的能力也不是资本主义所特有的，但劳动力是。用沃尔夫冈·豪格的话说，劳动力的购买是由一种“使用价值承诺”启动的，这种承诺不能被简化为生命本身的潜力(在这个意义上，抽象劳动的概念完全破坏了维尔诺、哈特和内格里的“生命政治”概念)。\n\n在《资本论》出版后写给恩格斯的一封信中，马克思认为恩格斯对“劳动的两重性，取决于它是用使用价值还是用交换价值来表达的”的分析是“我的书中两个最好的观点之一”。他声称，“所有对事实的理解都取决于这一点”(对此我们可以补充一句：“我们对历史总体性和时间性的理解也是如此”)。像劳动力的概念一样，具体和抽象劳动的概念并没有延伸到马克思的语料库中。在《政治批判大纲》中，“劳动本身”(Arbeit schlechthin)和“无语劳动”(laboursans phrase)似乎是抽象劳动的原型表述，但它们不是抽象劳动的概念，因为它们没有辩证地与具体劳动联系起来。只有在《贡献》(1859年)之后，具体和抽象劳动才成为马克思政治经济学批判中必不可少的概念(这很有趣，因为“劳动力”直到19世纪60年代中期才出现)。因此，尽管“劳动时间”劳动时间]确实在《政治批判大纲》中占有重要地位，但我们不能说它在马克思中作为一个概念发挥作用，直到《贡献》之后(《政治批判大纲》中有几段可以将“具体劳动时间”和“抽象劳动时间”同样作为概念构建)。但只有在通过具体劳动和抽象劳动的辩证法对它们进行追溯性解读的条件下，我们才会这么做。这与(本论文的)观点相吻合，即必须这样解读马克思：“具体劳动”和“具体劳动时间”，“抽象劳动”和“抽象劳动时间”，每一个都成为同一事物的两种不同表达。例如，抽象劳动始终是抽象劳动时间，是构成价值尺度和价值实体的同质的、可量化的、可分割的时间的特殊形式。无论是具体表现还是抽象表现，劳动时间的“时间”都是与“劳动”不可分割的。无论如何把握它(即使它从未离开“一般的”时间概念的领域)，它都不是一种可以附加在“劳动”上或从“劳动”中分离出来的东西。\n\n34 Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Commodity aesthetics revisited: Exchange relations as the source of antagonistic aesthetization' , Radical Philosophy 135 (January/February 2006), 19. Labour-power is a problem for Haug, insofar as its use-value promise -the aspects offered by the commodity' -cannot be reduced tothe Archimedean ellipse of commodity aesthetics.' Ibid. 19-20.\n\n35 Letter to Engels on 24 August 1867, Marx and Engels, MEW, Band 31 (Berlin; Dietz Verlag, 1965), 326. According to Marx, the other best point of the first volume of Capital is his treatment of surplus-value independently of its particular forms as profit, interest, ground-rent, etc.’ Ibid.\n\n36 Ibid.\n\n106","previous_page":105,"next_page":107}