{"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":161,"pdf_page":165,"physical_index":165,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"5e8126f7337d97625ddce3a6e5558634e450e91446f65337e9f0aacd7320e260"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"不再被呈现为尺度，而是必须被呈现为全球现象学结构，作为整体生产的基础、实体和流动。81资本的生产过程现在与作为一个整体的社会的生产同义，由此，价值形式先前所表达的剥削变成了“纯粹而简单的命令”。82\n\n至少在马克思自己看来，这种关于实际消费和作为尺度的劳动时间终结的解释是完全混乱的。使用价值构成了生产的“外部”领域，因此是“时间度量的外部起源”83的概念，指出了内格里工作的决定性限制:完全缺乏对商品化的分析，特别是完全缺乏对劳动力商品化的分析。84这种缺乏具有致命的影响，即从他的分析中消除了具体劳动和抽象劳动的辩证法，从而消除了劳动过程和价值增值过程的辩证法。这与他试图将真实的包容束缚在一个stagist的“之前”/“之后”框架中是相吻合的。就其逻辑结论而言，这种对真实包容的解读具有一种特殊的性质，即把劳动和增值过程的辩证法从它的范围中剔除，同时又宣布，随着真实包容的出现，这种辩证法已经达到了合理的目的，已经被简化为非辩证的同义反复。这就把我们带回到前面引用的《论机器的片段》的段落。之所以如此关注内格里对包容的解读，为什么他对劳动价值论的批判如此详尽，是因为这种解读和批判具有另一种特殊的品质:它们有效地，人们可能会自觉地说，表达了这样一种观点，即资本生产过程核心的自动化与资本的自动扩张是同义词。也就是说，内格里有效\n\n81 Negri, ‘The Constitution of Time’, 29.\n\n82 As Negri puts it the 1978 lectures: .when the theory of value cannot measure itself by a quantity of labour-time or by an individual dimension of labour, when a first displacement leads it to confront social time and the collective dimension of labour, at this moment the impossibility of measuring exploitation modifies the form of exploitation. The emptiness that appears in the theory of value, the evacuation of any element of measure which is not a generic reference to social industriousness, the liberation of social industriousness and its constitution in collective individuality, does not suppress the law of value but reduces it to a mere formality. Of course, formality does not mean a lack of eficacy. Formality does not mean a lack of meaning. The form of the law of value is, on the contrary, efficient and full of meaning, but efficacy and meaning are given to it only by its irrationality, by the end of the progressive and rationalising function of exploitation. The form is the empty, miserable base of exploitation. The form of value is pure and simple command, the pure and simple form of politics – of the “essential inessentiality\" , as the young Marx would say in Hegelian terms. We are here at the culminating point of a process in which the power relations -rationally established -regulated and included within the development of capital -are reversed. Where the relation of rationality inverts itself. The inversion is total.' Negri, Marx Beyond Marx, 147-48.\n\n83 Negri, The Constitution of Time’, 27.\n\n84 The use-value of labour-power' features in the translator’ s -Matteo Mandarini’ s -introduction to The Constitution of Time’ , but it is nowhere to be found in Negri’ s work itself. See Negri, Time for Revolution, 11. Mandarini reproduces Negri' s basic misunderstanding oflabour-power when he claims that the labour theory of value demanded that labour-power existed, in some sense, outside capital (outside its disciplinary regime) and needed to be drawn in.' Ibid.\n\n161","previous_page":160,"next_page":162}