{"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":154,"pdf_page":158,"physical_index":158,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b97eac09aa4925da460f6f8b7ba4dbc933e5f404ef4c82448a420038af8db799"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"但是，最终，他们指出了一个更根本的问题:未能认识到历史的可理解性取决于指导它的“总体化”概念。简单地说，指导卡马特的“资本下劳动的总消费”以及内格里的“社会的总消费”的总化是总化的庸俗含义:这是一个整体化的过程，它的单向推进在自身内包含着自身“完成”的可能性(在此，无论内格里有意与否，真正的包容成为历史的(按时间顺序的)“终结”的同义词)。3与这种对总体化的理解相对应的是时间化的庸俗含义，其历史记录是众所周知的:对时间的线性和不可逆转的理解，其监护人当然是年代学。然而，严格来说，问题不在于年表本身，而在于这样一个事实，即这种历史时间模型只表达了必须解释的东西:历史时间之所以是“历史的”是因为它表现为一种自我扩展的时间，或者换句话说，历史时间之所以是历史时间，是因为它自行扩展。对历史时间的普通理解记录了这一点，但它这样做的方式是将自我膨胀的起源掩盖起来(这就是为什么它是历史时间的主导模式)。卡马特、詹姆逊和内格里仅仅再现了历史时间的普通概念，他们无法解释他们的描述隐含地依赖于什么：“历史”本身就是自我扩张的永恒运动。尽管如此，具有讽刺意味的是，正是马克思对资本下劳动消费的分析使我们能够解释这一点。使这一切成为可能的不是一个封闭的和完成的总体性，而是一个根据定义是开放的和不完整的总体性，它的统一性.正如现在应该是显而易见的，正是它的分化过程。简而言之，正如前面所描述的那样，正是劳动过程和价值增值过程之间持续的辩证法一一正是卡马特、詹姆逊和内格里所忽视的辩证法一一构成了思考历史时间自我扩张的条件。包容是一个历史范畴，不是因为它是一个分期化的一一甚至是一个历史化的一—范畴，而是因为它是一个历史化的范畴:它是一个记录历史本身构成的范畴。\n\n63 If Negri’ s concep of totalisation çorrelates to the ordinary concept of totality -totalisation extending into every facet of the social' and life' -this is becuse, for him, valorisation is a continuous and totalitarian process, it knows neither limit nor repose.’ Negri, Marx Beyond Marx, 76. Jettisoning the commodification of labour-power as the defining limit of valorisation, is, in short, to confuse, and thus conflate, totalisation and totalitarianism.\n\n154","previous_page":153,"next_page":155}