{"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":168,"pdf_page":172,"physical_index":172,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"8fac61300baed3b0f9a0d2867125b4f5d4ca1f7d64f3593fb6f2e03d5131f141"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"……(资本)为发展富有的个性创造物质要素，这种个性在生产上和消费上都是全面的，因此，这种个性的劳动也不再表现为劳动，而是表现为活动本身的充分发展，在这种发展中，直接形式的自然必然性已经消失了;因为历史地创造出来的需要代替了自然的需要。这就是为什么资本是生产性的;即社会生产力发展的本质关系。105\n\n在马克思中—一从《政治批判大纲》开始一一两种话语之间存在着一种明显的张力：异化既是也不是人类与其需求扩张的分离和剥夺。然而，正是通过这种张力，我们必须理解异化与唯物主义历史观之间的关系。这些话语是辩证地相互联系在一起的:如果没有资本对这些需要和力量的发展，就没有它们主动被重新占有的可能性(也就是说，没有共产主义的可能性)。这种张力——辩证法——直指马克思的“社会个体”意义的核心(正如第二章所论证的，Mészáros没有抓住这一点):历史是“生产力的扩张”这一概念是以这样一种生产方式的存在为前提的，在这种生产方式中，“一方面，我们有生产力的总和，这些生产力……采取了物质形式，对个人来说，不再是个人的力量，而是私人属性的力量;因此，对于个人来说，只有当他们自己是私有属性的所有者时(也就是说，只有当劳动力被商品化时);而在另一方面，社会个人的生产力在生产过程中(在更普遍的资本主义社会中)是由资本积极地发展起来的。这种张力和辩证法被《资本论》进一步复杂化，以至于作为异化社会关系的“承担者”和“人格化”的人类的深刻结构主义维度同时记录了人类与他们人格化的结构之间的距离，到了他们被这些结构过度决定的地步，然而——与此同时—这些人就是这些结构。换句话说，“资本家”可能只是资本的人格化，但他并没有因此而减少个人，正如“工人”可能是“可变资本”的人格化，但他同样也没有因此而减少个人。\n\n我们现在所处的位置是，阶级和阶级斗争的构成地位107必须根据马克思的哲学历史观重新加以评估。第一章简要地提出\n\n105 Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, 244 (Grundrisse, 325). 106Marx and Engels, GI, 92.\n\n107 These two terms should be understood synonymously, In Marx, class' is not a static category which is subsequently put into motion through struggle. 'Class' is already always class struggle, which is to say that, so long as classes exist, they only ever exist through struggle. To rearticulate the relationship between needs and the means of their satisfaction in Chapter 1, there is no chronological succession here: one moment (the existence of a class) is not subsequently followed by another (the struggle of this class).\n\n168","previous_page":167,"next_page":169}