{"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":115,"pdf_page":119,"physical_index":119,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"85c2d937249cd6c50c3875747bbc8635f11b948e19e96b8996f2318ca04bc112"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"使抽象劳动成为非历史时间的一种形式。84它由此使得资本主义的历史时间和其他生产方式之间的差别变得难以区分:资本主义历史时间的决定性方面不是抽象劳动和具体劳动的辩证法，而是具体劳动自身的生产率。总而言之，“抽象和历史时间的辩证法”没有历史性，也不能被理解为内在的价值形式。这是无意的，但在《时间、劳动和社会统治》中表现出来的社会总体性背弃了抽象劳动时间和具体劳动时间之间的辩证的一一历史性的一一关系。85简单地说，它没有历史地记录这种关系。\n\n如果波斯顿将具体劳动“时间化”的尝试是失败的尝试，那么它仍然提醒我们，具体劳动时间只有在它与抽象劳动时间的辩证关系中才能被理解。有一点是显而易见的:没有具体劳动这样的东西：“具体劳动”永远只是特殊的具体劳动，是劳动的一种社会形式，在它的具体化中必然是多重的。我们也不能说具体劳动产生价值(这就等于说具体劳动不能立即还原为抽象劳动)。价值的生产是抽象劳动的唯一范围。因此，在马克思看来，不可能把具体劳动想象成与抽象劳动具有同等普遍性的水平。然而，这并不意味着具体劳动不能作为时间化本身的一种形式来考察，我们可以说，不存在一个具体劳动的每一个实例所共有的时间化结构。具体劳动概念产生的一个关键问题是，如何协调其明确的经验基础(这一基础将大多数具体劳动的分析限制在一个必须“在“同质时间”内发生的时间……被迫在其抽象尺度的时间内发生”86)与其隐含的存在基础(每个人都共享的存在基础)社会个体)，同时保持它的历史基础(由它与抽象劳动的关系所保证的基础)。换句话说，造船的经验时间性与写论文的经验时间性不同，但仍有可能为两者分配一个共同的存在基础，其普遍性与抽象劳动所代表的存在基础不同(但正因为如此，资本主义在历史上的特殊性也丝毫不减)。然而，我们必须坚持这一点:如果这个基础是具体的一种“尺度”\n\n84 This puts Postone squarely in line with Sohn-Rethel: see footnote 8 in this chapter.\n\n85 Postone maintains that Sartre’s Critique presuppose[s] the concepts of “moment\"” and “totality” ontologically.’ Postone, Time, Labor and Social Domination, 152, ft. 86. He goes on to argue that, as against Sartre and Althusser alike, his work treats the relation of moment and totality as historically constituted, a function of the peculiar properties of the social forms analysed by Marx with his categories of value, abstract labor, commodity, and capital.' Ibid. Assuming that ontologically'means ahistorically' here, we can state that Postone's concepts of abstract time' and concrete time' , as well as the relation he establishes between them, can be subjected to the same critique.\n\n86Bonefeld, Abstract labour: Against its nature and on its time’, 267-68. Most analyses of concrete labourtime are in this sense Kantian: they accord to the schematism of the categories, in particular the schemas of magnitude and substance. See Kant, CPR, A143-44/B182-84, 274-75.\n\n115","previous_page":114,"next_page":116}