{"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":137,"pdf_page":141,"physical_index":141,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"875c005826c0da6cec85d1941fbde51905488e8922cf7c16784ded504161759e"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"历史化运动:它们成为历史总化和历史时间化运动的组成部分。因此，本章反对萨特，认为有一个总化者一一资本—一使历史总化和时间化。10广义地说，这就是“资本是历史的主体”这句话的含义。在本体论上，这并不是断言(这里我们必须借鉴历史主义对历史时间的理解)资本是迄今为止所有现存(人类)历史的主体，也将是未来所有(人类)历史的主体。这是荒谬的。从本体论上讲，只要资本主义存在并继续存在，资本就一直是、也将一直是历史的主体(即使，严格地说，不仅不可能知道资本主义何时—一或者是否会——结束，也不可能知道资本主义何时“开始”1)。然而，在认识论上，这并不能否定这样一个事实，即没有资本，就没有自身存在的历史:没有“迄今为止存在的一切社会的历史”，也没有“未来的一切历史”。“历史本身”、“历史本身”是由于资本而存在的。\n\n这样做的结果是什么?如果在某种程度上，我们坚持唯物主义的历史观，认为“历史”可以被理解为“人类生活资料的社会生产”，一种满足人类现有需要并创造新的人类需要的生产，那么，我们必须认识到并通过这样一个事实，即资本是使这种理解成为可能的主体。在方法论上，这要求我们将历史的逻辑延伸到资本本身。这就要求我们从这个角度来理解资本——它的现存的和新的需要可以表述为“扩大规模的再生产，即积累”12\n\n[becomes] more consistent thanks to some modifications' after 1862. Ibid. 144, 142. Total social capital’ [gesellschaftlichen Gesamtkapital] is, as we will later learn, the decisive modification. Hegel is the clear interlocutor here, insofar as the three moments of the Concept in the Logic (universality, particularity and singularity) correspond to capital in general, many competing capitals and interest-bearing capital in Capital. The details of this reading of the Hegel/Marx confrontation are not important here, but what needs to be stressed is that capital in general’ does not turn its back on particularity and singularity, but is dialectically dependent on them. Hence the ‘historicalisation' being discussed here is not indifferent to different particular histories, nor is it indifferent to the singularity of the historical event, but is rather dialectically dependent on them. As previously cited, this doyetails with the problem of history as how to universalise the singular without suppressing its specificity.’ Mészáros, The Work of Sartre: Search for Freedom and the Challenge of History, 242.\n\n10 Disclosing capital as this totaliser does not invalidate, but actually registers, Hegel' s cunning .of reason', as well as the invisible hand' of Smith' s market. This is the structuralist dimension of capital' s subjectness: it is the hidden' or empty' subject of history.\n\n11 Take the question of the origins of capitalism' . Insofar as capitalism is a mode of production, and a mode of production is a totalising abstraction of multiple, actually existing societies, the desire to locate the origins of capitalism in a particular time, place, and phenomenon (in, for instance, 16th century English agrarian relations, which is the ‘Brenner Thesis' ) is fundamentally misguided. In other words, capitalism is capitalism by virtue of the fact that, as a system of social relations and forces irreducible to linear causation and time, its origins belong to no one place, time or phenomenon. This fact guides Marx' s analysis of originary accumulation’ , and it is, to varying degrees, lost on the leading thinkers of the origins of capitalism (e.g. Fernand Braudel, Maurice Dobb, Paul Sweezy, Robert Brenner, Perry Anderson, Immanuel Wallerstein and Ellen Meiksins Wood).\n\n12Marx, Capital 1, 763.\n\n137","previous_page":136,"next_page":138}