{"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":153,"pdf_page":157,"physical_index":157,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"aa629b80c233d9aae7f49994fdee12c96a9e56281936a44fda736aa4836b5e23"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"作为本质上的社会存在的人的历史意义。61我们还必须注意到詹姆逊对“资本”和“资本主义”的合并，导致了诸如“一切都被纳入资本主义”这样的陈述(资本是资本主义的全面的、占主导地位的主体，而不是唯一的主体)。内格里关于“不再存在使用价值可以依赖的外部优势”的论点，正如前一章所证明的那样，也错过了使用价值范畴的历史特殊性。暂时不考虑是否有可能谈论形式包容与现实包容相对立的“历史阶段”这个问题，认为在资本主义内部曾经有过使用价值拥有这样一个“外部”优势的时刻，就是忘记了这样一个事实，即在资本主义内部，使用价值总是“在交换价值的伪装下”出现的，使用价值只是在价值形式内与交换价值相对立的。但这里需要强调的是，这些批判围绕着，但没有直接面对的一点是，卡马特，詹姆逊，最重要的是，内格里的方式，他们不仅假设了需要解释的东西，而且还援引了允许我们解释需要解释的东西的范畴。更直接地说:他们揭示了，尽管是无意和无意识的，在资本下劳动的包容和历史时间的生产之间存在着本体论和认识论上的基本关系，而且，总体化的范畴是首先允许我们揭示这种关系的东西。换句话说，他们的主要问题不是他们想要将包容的范围从资本的生产过程扩展到“一切”(詹姆逊)的愿望(马克思肯定不会赞同这一点)，或“整个生命时间”(内格里)——一种几乎没有什么作用的欲望，但混淆了资本主义和资本主义之间的基本区别，或者更具体地说，混淆了资本的生产过程和更普遍的社会再生产之间的区别。62主要问题也不是他们想要创造不同的、按时间顺序的历史阶段，与形式的、然后是真正的包容相对应，这种欲望从一开始就忽视了资本主义内部这两种包容形式之间不断的相互作用。这些都是有可能抛弃可理解性的重大问题\n\n61 This is important because it points to the sense in which Jameson’ s category of postmodernity’ (that Representing Capital certainly holds on to) can be understood as an essentially ahistorical, if not antihistorical, category. If postmodernity' isour' current historical conjuncture wherein real subsumption subsumes everything' , the irony here is that Jameson' s philosophy of history aligns with Marx' s -the economic and the social become intertwined -precisely at the moment that Jameson evacuates history from Marx (who provides, one might say, a pre-postmodern’ account of capitalism).\n\n62 What these accounts -particularly Negri' s -do is eradicate the ineradicable, the unsurpassable, limit to capital: the commodification of labour-power. The consequences of this are immense, and leave us with a Marx that is barely recognisable. When, as Negri says, ‘social labour covers all the time of life’ , it is not just the difference between labour-power and living labour which isappears, but the very difference between the production- and circulation-process of capital. Social life’ as such becomes synonymous with labour-time' , such that the raison d'être of capitalism is not valorisation, but the tautological desire for command for command’ s sake.\n\n153","previous_page":152,"next_page":154}