{"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":151,"pdf_page":155,"physical_index":155,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"6800d8dabea407f1a14d158892b414f888214a84f65114aa5dd6de4f1f9b2928"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"这最终是将资本确立为一种新的独特的历史方式的构成要素的可能性的基础)现实的包容——而不是形式的包容—一是资本主义社会劳动生产力产生和发展的原因，正如上面引用的段落所说明的那样。真正的包容—一而不是形式的包容—一是“劳动的社会生产力作为资本的无偿礼物而发展……并表现为资本按其本性所拥有的一种力量一一资本所固有的生产力”的原因。53然而，只有这两种包容形式之间的持续相互作用才会引起资本的自我扩张;正如我们现在将开始更详细地考察的那样，只有这种相互作用，才把资本登记为一种总化的、时间化的、从而历史化的辩证法。总而言之，形式的包容和现实的包容构成了资本自我扩张的需要得以实现的物质过程。这些过程对于我们理解历史和历史时间至关重要。然而，为了确定资本作为一种包容如何与历史相关，我们必须首先考虑它是如何与历史无关的。也就是说，我们必须首先考虑，包容是如何经常被置于一个历史总化和时间化的框架中，这个框架除了假定并因此模糊资本、时间和历史是如何相互构成的之外，几乎没有别的作用。\n\n在过去的三、四十年里，对历史和包容之间关系的一种常见解读出现了，这种解读尽管存在各种内部变化，但仍坚持两个基本假设。54首先，马克思的“包容”可以理解为历史分期的一个范畴，这样连续的历史时期(不管它们是如何划分的)直接对应于形式包容和现实包容的连续阶段。在这些叙述中，形式包容与现实包容的确切含义各不相同，但形式包容在逻辑上和历史上都先于现实包容的信念是坚定的。55这些解读只局限于西欧的历史。其次，当代(20世纪70年代初起)的真实包容阶段可以被理解为雅克·卡马特(JacquesCamatte)所说的“劳动力在资本下的总包容”。56人们可能会说，这就是真实的包容“完成”了资本下劳动的包容的方式。有两个段落57举例说明了这两个假设，特别是“完全包容”的假设。第一段来自弗雷德里克\n\n53 Ibid. 381.\n\n54Despite its shortcomings, the Endnotes Collective provides a useful and critical introduction to this reading. See http://endnotes. org. uk/en/endnotes-the-history-of-subsumption (accessed 27 April 2015). The primary focus of this article is the French group Théorie Communiste.\n\n55 See e.g. Étienne Balibar, Elements for a Theory of Transition', in Althusser and Balibar, Reading Capital, 302-3, wherein formal subsumption begins with the form of outwork on behalf of a merchant capitalist and ends with the industrial revolution.' For Balibar, formal subsumption thus coincides with Marx' s analysis of manufacture, and possesses the structure and form of a transition wherein there is a distinct non-correspondence -a dislocation -between the forces and relations of production.\n\n56 Jacques Camatte, Capital and Community [1976], trans. David Brown (London: Unpopular Books, 1988), 45. I am indebted to the Endnotes Collective for this reference.\n\n57I am indebted to Andrés Sáenz de Sicilia for both of these references.\n\n151","previous_page":150,"next_page":152}