{"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":120,"pdf_page":124,"physical_index":124,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"96e1b4ba66a8645d67d13f93d376898c57da907aa3e33593c40f68a1e25b35c2"},"chapter":"第三章劳工向何处去？","content":"事实上，它是M-C-M的经济主体)，但它之所以是这个主体，是因为它的需求剥夺了人类(以自己的方式)综合和暂时化历史的能力。这就是为什么，正如第4章所说，《资本论》是思考《德意志意识形态》中唯物主义历史观的条件，但仅仅是因为它动摇了这个概念:思考第一个历史行为的条件，正如我们将看到的，是它的去历史化。它不能也永远不会实现它的最终目的(无限的财富)，但在它消失之前，资本将永远不会停止试图确保人类的需要，从而“物质生活本身”，不会超过“……个人肉体存在的再生产”。「102]\n\n毫无疑问，马克思对政治经济学的批判不可避免地改变了劳动的一般范畴。在《贡献》和《资本论》之后，必须通过抽象劳动的概念，对劳动本身及其与具体劳动的动态关系，重新思考劳动的总化、时代化和历史化的力量。103然而，如果抽象劳动不与《资本论》第一卷的另一个“最佳点”:剩余价值的概念(Mehrwert)结合起来，它就什么都不是一一没有实际的物质性。剩余价值一一对它的研究指导了本章的其余部分一一比任何其他概念都更能说明资本主义内部历史所采取的复杂(和政治上令人恼火的)方向。就“一个对象对资本所能具有的唯一效用(n<s:1>tzlichkeit)就是保存或增加资本”而言，剩余价值决定了这样一个事实，即活劳动“不是作为使用价值，而是作为纯粹的使用价值……资本本身的使用价值来面对资本”。105.从抽象劳动和具体劳动的辩证法中，出现了两个新的概念(它们又是同一的):剩余劳动和剩余劳动时间106。剩余劳动和所生产的剩余价值一样，决不是一个直截了当的概念(通常是这样)\n\n102 Marx and Engels, DI, 21 (GI, 42).\n\n103 Consider this passage by Tombazos : In the usual way of reading Capital, the commodity divides itself into abstract and concrete labour, in value and use-value, without being able to be value if it is not also usevalue, and vice versa. This is correct but insufficient. Abstract labour divides itself, within itself, into abstract labour (universality) and abstract/concrete labour (universality/particularity)…It seems to us more correct to say that the commodity is divided into value and value/use-value in order to highlight the non-independent (and neutral) character of use-values under capitalism. Thus, abstract labour appears in two forms: as a simple unity with itself (value, universality) and as a\" “composed\" unity (value/use-value, abstract/concrete labour, particularity).’ Tombazos, Time in Marx, 29-30. The problem with this passage is not that all use-values are dependent on value, but that they are all neutral (the use-value of labour-power is by no means neutral’ ).\n\n104Marx, Grundrisse, 270.\n\n105 Ibid. 295, 297. Like most passages in the Grundrisse, this passage must be read from the retroactive standpoint of the dialectic of abstract and concrete labour. See, in addition, Arthur, The New Dialectic and Marx's Capital, 42.\n\n106 Unlike concrete labour', abstract labour’ and necessary labour'’, surplus-labour' will be written with a hyphen in orer to reflect the unity,of the original Ġerman. The same holds for surpluslabour-time' (as against necessary labour-time' [notwendige Arbeitszeit]). In the Grundrisse, Marx often uses the term surplus-time' [Surpluszeit] synonymously with surplus-labour-time.\n\n120","previous_page":119,"next_page":121}