{"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":169,"pdf_page":173,"physical_index":173,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"485f3a4c674f74a808a550546c2b31e75b95520b4a774ce942d360316ac4fd37"},"chapter":"第四章《资本论》:思考历史的条件","content":"在某种程度上，“阶级”的范畴是否可以用超越历史的术语来理解的问题，并表明，尽管像“与剩余产品相关的人类的分化和分组”这样的东西可能被理解为超越历史的有效(即，在迄今为止的所有人类历史中)，阶级和它们所构成的斗争，归根结底，不能被理解为本体论上的原创性，就像劳动和需要能够而且必须被理解为本体论上的原创性一样，尽管一些马克思主义者会反对这一点。阶级和分工在本体论上是与劳动和需要“相去甚远”的，因此，只有在需求和满足这些需求的劳动被确立为历史的基本可理解性之后，阶级和阶级斗争才能在逻辑上被理解为历史的“动力”或“引擎”。108然而，一旦资本被确立为思考历史的条件(一旦抽象劳动成为思考“一般劳动”的条件，一旦资本自我扩张的需要成为思考人类需求扩张的条件)，阶级就承担了一种建构性的功能，而这种功能在以前—一在超历史的层面上一一是我们无法证明的。这是因为资本主义特有的阶级的形成—一阶级的形成不仅来自于对生产生活资料的占有，而且来自于一个阶级对另一个阶级对这些资料的排他性占有—一是一种物质基础，没有这种物质基础，异化和异化，从而“历史”就不会存在。换句话说，生产者对劳动过程的所有方面(劳动活动、劳动资料和劳动产品)都不拥有所有权，这是思维历史的直接条件。这其中特殊的资本主义方面是至关重要的。如果像《德意志意识形态》所主张的那样，(到目前为止)没有脱离最初的精神劳动和物质劳动的分工，也就是说，脱离统治阶级的存在而存在的意识，那么马克思对价值增值过程所包含的劳动过程的分析，含蓄地改变了这一点。并揭示了(到目前为止)不存在历史意识，不存在孤立于资本主义内部的分工和由此产生的阶级的产生之外的历史意识。因此，正如前面所引用的那样，当巴里巴尔指出，“马克思……(扩展)了劳动分工的最充分范围……”，据此，他“在劳动分工和意识分工的双重层面上使阶级存在，因此也使……社会划分为阶级是一种条件或一种思想结构”109。我们必须说明这一点，并声明，只有资本主义把社会划分为阶级，才使“历史”的思想成为可能。如果对于马克思和恩格斯来说，阶级达到了一个\n\n108 The essential point here is that if, famously, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’ , this proclamation can only be sustained after the needs of capital, or more precisely, after the real subsumption of the labour-process under capital, has been established as the condition of thinking the history of all hitherto existing society' . See Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 34. The historical importance of class struggle is not thereby diminished: it is simply given its ontological and epistemological basis.\n\n109 Balibar, The Philosophy of Marx, 46, 44.\n\n169","previous_page":168,"next_page":170}