{"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":108,"pdf_page":112,"physical_index":112,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"312f4cf4edd149fbd3c065ead4af34e01588295a3cae284eccf14736de5ffc1b"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"“(具体的)劳动的简化是指劳动质量的贫乏。但是，即使是最简单的运动，也仍然具有某种性质，它决不可能是抽象的。41简单地说，抽象劳动的“内容”不能与泰勒主义或装配线混为一谈。\n\n关于抽象劳动的第二个也是更为普遍的误解需要更详细的研究。《贡献》和《资本论》第一章中关于这种劳动的生理维度的段落——抽象劳动是“人类大脑、肌肉、神经、手等的生产性支出”42—一继续在次要文献中造成某种裂痕。I.I.鲁宾的《马克思价值论论文集》(1923)(或者，确切地说，是在20世纪70年代早期对这部作品的重新发现)是这一观点的起源。鲁宾认为：\n\n两种情况有一种是可能的:如果抽象劳动是以生理形式消耗人的能量，那么价值就具有物化的特征。或者价值是一种社会现象，那么抽象劳动也必须被理解为一种与一定的社会生产形式相联系的社会现象。把抽象劳动的生理概念和它所创造的价值的历史性质调和起来是不可能的。 43\n\n马克思抽象劳动概念的生理维度和社会维度之间的“不可调和”的鸿沟经常被框定为一种超越历史的鸿沟，从这个意义上讲，可以理解为平行于他对劳动力和使用价值的描述中固有的模糊性，如果不是其组成部分的话。这促使一些评论家代表马克思做出选择，从而为批判(即一致)重建这一概念扫清了道路。继鲁宾之后，Bonefeld拒绝了抽象劳动中生理学的任何地位:它所定义的“非社会生理学术语”与它作为“资本主义劳动的特定时间形式”的存在是不相容的。44另一方面，与鲁宾相反，阿克塞尔·基西洛夫和圭多·斯塔罗斯塔坚持认为，生理定义是“抽象劳动的唯一有意义的定义，抽象劳动和它的具体方面一样，是一种纯粹的物质形式，没有社会或历史的特殊性。 ”45波斯顿采取了一种(看似)更微妙的立场:\n\n41 Arthur, The New Dialectic and Marx's Capital, 44.\n\n42 Marx, Capital 1, 134. See also Marx, Contribution, 30-1.\n\n43 Isaak Illich Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value [1923, 3rd edition 1928], trans. Milo Samardija and Fredy Perlman (Detroit: Black and Red, 1972), 135.\n\n44 Bonefeld, Abstract labour: Against its nature and on its time’, 258.\n\n45 Axel Kicillof and Guido Starosta, On Materiality and Social Form: a Political Critique of Rubin’ s Value-Form Theory' , Historical Materialism 15:3 (2007), 34. Kicillof and Starosta expand on this by stating that when performed privately and independently, and once congealed in the natural materiality of the product of labour, that purely material form acquires the form of the value of the commodity, i.e. a purely socíal form that embodies “not an atom of matter\".’ Ibid. 34-5. The problems with this reading are too many to detail here, but Kicillof and Starosta are unique insofar as they effectively state that abstract labour is not just a transhistorical generalisation of concrete labour which is transformed\n\n108","previous_page":107,"next_page":109}