{"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":2,"pdf_page":6,"physical_index":6,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b918348de4adf5ff68e5117138e5d740516ae79a5cbc36d0751441e5b7b95e4c"},"chapter":"马克思与历史时间概念","content":"《德意志意识形态》也就是说，这部作品为我们提供了思考“唯物主义历史观”的手段。这种立场并非没有批评者(其中可能包括马克思本人，他在《政治经济学批判贡献》的序言中提出了著名的建议，认为《德意志意识形态》最好留给“老鼠的啃噬批评”。(4)正如克里斯·阿瑟(Chris Arthur)最近提醒我们的那样，“唯物主义历史观”一词根本不在《德意志意识形态》的书页中。⁵马克思和恩格斯谈到“实践唯物主义者”、“共产主义唯物主义者”、“唯物主义观点”、史学的“唯物主义基础”，甚至谈到他们的“历史观”，但严格地说，他们没有提到“唯物主义历史观”。尽管这个名称的实际出现，这篇论文是从一个前提出发的，即存在一种独特的历史观——一种与“唯物主义历史观”相一致的历史观—一它可以被表述为一个概念—-一个哲学的历史观。因此，这篇论文“同意”MassimilianoTomba的断言“历史唯物主义”作为一种历史理论或唯物主义历史观并不存在”6，并不是因为在《德意志意识形态》中没有历史理论或唯物主义历史观，而是因为马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中从未使用过“历史唯物主义”这个词。事实上，本文认为，正是《德意志意识形态》中唯物主义历史观的存在，动摇了被称为“历史唯物主义”的编纂传统。这并不意味着《德意志意识形态》向我们呈现了一个现成的历史概念。远非如此。作为一份手稿，《德意志意识形态》——坦率地说—一是一团糟。这不仅仅是因为它在历史上被不同的编辑以不同的方式组织起来，所以说《德意志意识形态》是值得怀疑的。更重要的是，《德意志意识形态》与其所有的历史表现形式一样，是一种大杂烩——拼贴——重叠的政治、哲学、经济和历史见解，其特点是杂乱无章地混合了历史和超历史的主张，也就是说，特定于单一生产方式(特别是资本主义)的主张，以及旨在在迄今为止的所有人类历史的层面上把握的主张，或者迄今为止的所有人类历史和投机的未来。除此之外，对《德意志意识形态》的接受一直被所谓的“费尔巴哈章”(在大多数版本中是第一章)所主导，这混淆了一个事实，即绝大多数手稿实际上是对“青年黑格尔主义者”布鲁诺·鲍尔(Bruno Bauer)和马克斯·施蒂纳(max Stirner)的批评。对于加里·布朗宁来说，这种“对《德意志意识形态》开篇部分的独家关注…低估了对施蒂纳的关注，忽视了开篇部分对施蒂纳的批判性反思的出处。”这篇论文与布朗宁的指责是共通的:它完全集中在所谓的“费尔巴哈章”上。但是，它以这样一种方式证明了“唯物主义历史观”不仅存在于《德意志意识形态》中，而且对历史哲学和时间哲学都有重大影响。\n\nGerman works are modified, the German edition will be cited first, followed by the English language edition in parentheses.\n\n⁴Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, [1859] (hereafter Contribution), trans. S.W. Ryazanskaya (New York: International Publishers, 1970), 22.\n\nSee Arthur' s review of Terrell Carver an Daniel Blank' s Marx and Engels's “German Ideology\" Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach Chapter\" (New York: algrave Macmillan, 2014), and A Political History of the Editions of Marx and Engels's “German Ideology\" Manuscripts (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), in the online resource Marx and Philosophy Review of Books, http:// marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2015/1846 (accessed 1 July 2015).\n\nMassimiliano Tomba, Marx's Temporalities, trans. Peter D. Thomas an Sara R. Farris (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2013), vii. Tomba continues: \"Historical materialism\" is not a passe-partout for the comprehension of history, but a practical mode of intervention into history.' Ibid. This argument is misleading, because it implicitly suggests that the philosophy of history is essentially indifferent to the practical mode of intervention into history’ . It relegates the existence of the materialist concept of history – indeed the concept as such -to passe-partout’ comprehension, to pure thought.\n\n7On this point, see again Arthur’ s review of Carver and Blank' s work in Marx and Philosophy Review of Books (see footnote 5).\n\n2","previous_page":1,"next_page":3}