{"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":109,"pdf_page":113,"physical_index":113,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d1980ab4dbb878fac9d9ebfdd7dee12cd502aa4d2ee237732b158da8a2e1448b"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"我们必须“超越抽象人类劳动的生理定义”，同时揭示为什么马克思将价值形成的实体呈现为生理的;也就是说，它是“超历史的、自然的，因而在历史上是空的”。46对波斯顿来说，答案是马克思对商品拜物教的分析:脑力、肌肉等的消耗是抽象劳动作为一般社会中介的必要表现形式，因此是“资本主义拜物教的基本核心”。47然而，这一立场有一个根本性的缺陷，对这一缺陷的识别揭示了这些评论者所共有的一个问题。“抽象劳动时间的发现不可避免地导致商品拜物教的发现”48，正如丹尼尔Bensaid正确地声明的那样，但这并不是因为生理劳动等于抽象劳动的表现形式，而是因为，从资本的观点来看，人体完全可以归结为抽象劳动，归结为纯粹社会的大脑、肌肉、神经、手等等，它们的消耗满足了纯粹社会的需要。49这就是马克思所说的“简单平均劳动”，而这种劳动正是价值形式(即货币)既表达又掩盖的东西。资本(和政治经济学)希望我们认为创造价值的“劳动”，那种超越历史和自然的劳动，等等，不是马克思所呈现的原子化形式的生理劳动，而是质上不同和统一的人类和身体的劳动。这种劳动“本身具有价值”，并且“表现为有偿劳动”。50简而言之，马克思抽象劳动概念的生理维度并没有贬低它的历史特殊性或纯粹的社会特征，而是记录了它。正如阿尔弗雷德·施密特(Alfred Schmidt)提醒我们的那样，在马克思的著作中，“历史本身投射到人类的生理结构中”51，而这一特定于资本主义的一个(但绝不是唯一的)方面，是将人类身体还原为同样的“幽灵般的客观性”52，这是价值的例证。\n\ninto a purely social form of labour specific to capitalism, but both of these forms of labour at the same time.\n\n46 Postone, Time, Labor, nd Social Doination, 145. This passage reflects the fact that, for Postone, the ontological' and the transhistorical' are synonymous. In other words, he systematically dissociates ontology and history, and thus refuses the possibility of a historical ontology.\n\n47 Ibid. 170. For Postone, the physiological definition of abstract labour is accordingly central to Marx’ s immanent critique, because it is à part of an analysis of capitalism in its own terms, that is, as the forms present themselves.' Ibid.\n\n4 Daniel Bensaid, Marx for Our Times: Adventures and Misadventures of a Critique [1995], trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2002), 118.\n\n49To put this another way: from the standpoint of capital, the use-value of labour-power, a usefulness which is conditioned by the properties of the bodies of commodities' , is purely social brains, muscles, nerves, hands, etc. Marx, Kapital 1, 50 (Capital 1, 126). I owe this reference and translation to C.E. McMenamin.\n\n50Marx, Capital 1, 677, 680.\n\n51 Alfred Schmidt, The Concept of Nature in Marx [1962], trans. Ben Fowkes (London and Brooklyn: Verso, 2014), 84.\n\n52 Marx, Capital 1, 128.\n\n109","previous_page":108,"next_page":110}