{"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":135,"pdf_page":139,"physical_index":139,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cb98da648bfaab9374084cd93f9618ba4710fd48b62d78b01047782ee805883d"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"每一种劳动的历史本体论基础—一即决定在每一种劳动中，总化是时间化，而时间化是总化的基础一一是相同的。这个基础，很简单，就是资本自我扩张的需要。⁵然而，如果是这样的话，新的问题就出现了:资本自我扩张的需要与历史之间的关系是什么?更准确地说，这种需要与唯物主义历史观之间的关系是什么?这种需要作为一种现代的、哲学的历史观，又与这个概念有怎样的关系?资本对扩张的不懈追求贯穿了马克思对政治经济学的整个批判，但将马克思对这种追求的阐述重新构建为一种历史化的需要概念，意味着什么呢?一种记录历史本身创造的需要概念，从而使资本的需要历史地化了必要的需要?这些问题指出这样一个事实:必然性(notendigkeit)和需要(bedrfnis)这两个概念的广阔本体论范围，在1844年《手稿》中首次提出，并在《德意志意识形态》中得到充实，但马克思在《资本论》的各个草稿中并没有实现。换句话说，从《政治批判大纲》开始，本章认为，马克思并没有充分地支持“唯物主义观点”，根据《德意志意识形态》，这种观点不仅决定了必需品和需求必须服从历史逻辑，而是必须被理解为构成了那个逻辑本身。在《德意志意识形态》中，这种观点无疑是建立在人的需要和必需品的基础上的，但这并不意味着它不会因此延伸到资本的需要和必需品。一点也不。如果，在资本主义内部，人的需求是内在的，如果他们的满足是因为资本，这意味着资本不仅仅使自己与唯物主义观点相关。它重新确立了这种观点。这一点必须进行系统的研究，这样，需要、资本和历史之间的一套普遍的本体论关系就会显露出来，而且会超越马克思用来表现这些关系的主要框架，也就是说，超越对历史的一般理解。马克思告诉我们，社会需要是进化和扩大的，资本主义是社会必要劳动和社会需要的历史特定形态，它异化了人的必需品和人的需要。这当然是对的，但它更笼统地假定而不是解释了资本的自我扩张与唯物主义历史观之间的关系。\n\n我们必须处理这种关系，因为，正如我们已经确定的那样，抽象劳动是思考“一般劳动”范畴的条件，而唯物主义历史观的可理解性就依赖于这个范畴。但是一—这是切中要害的\n\n5 This is not to say that capital' s need to self-expand is not itself ontologically grounded by the human’ s need to socially produce the means of its life, that there is not, in other words, a mutually constitutive\n\n-a reciprocal -ontological ground between capital' s need and human needs. The point, rather, is that the historical-ontological ground of the expansion of human needs within capitalism, that which gives this expansion its historical intelligibility, is capital’ s need to self-expand.\n\n135","previous_page":134,"next_page":136}