{"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":37,"pdf_page":41,"physical_index":41,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"a2afda3dedf77b3efb399ea5e7b512846ca1e3991f21b8c571379eb102380454"},"chapter":"第一章唯物主义历史观:一种时间解读","content":"从古典政治经济学的角度来看，亚当·斯密和弗里德里希·李斯特不可否认地影响了马克思关于劳动作为生产力的概念。总的来说，马克思认为生产力的复杂和多维的意义可以归结为这样一个事实:在它与生产关系的辩证关系中，生产力构成了一种纯粹的社会力量，它同时产生于劳动，并通过劳动实现自己。这就解释了为什么，再举一个例子，马克思和恩格斯坚持认为，个人在生产生活资料方面的社会合作模式本身就是一种“生产力”。77同时，如果正如马克思和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中反复指出的那样，现有的生产关系成为生产力扩张的“羁绊”，从而使这种持续的冲突为历史指明方向，那么力量和生产关系之间的辩证法就不会崩溃。从这里可以收集到什么(如果有的话)时间性，这种时间性与生活资料的社会生产(第一个历史行为的时间性)有什么关系?在超历史的层面上，这些问题很难回答，如果不是不可能回答的话，这不仅仅是因为生产关系的时间性只有在不同生产方式的层面上才能理解(工人和资本家之间的时间关系当然是，这与封建农奴和领主之间的关系是不一样的)，而且还因为生产力扩张的意义本身并不是一种暂时可以理解的东西(除非人们像马克思经常表现的那样，满足于线性的、进步时间是我们理解这一点的隐含框架expansion78)。即使，对马克思来说，“力量”是一个比“手段”更广泛的本体论范畴，因此力量在本体论上是手段的基础，它是生活手段的创造，表达了一种行为固有的暂时性，这必须巩固我们对历史的(临时的)时间理解。没有理由认为，力量和生产关系的辩证法不能被渲染为加强前面分析的现在和过去的辩证法的时间性，从而加强历史的现在相对于历史的过去的优先性(力量和生产关系的辩证法是历史的现在的内在的)，但这是只能在特定的生产方式的层面上完成的事情(这不是我们现在的task7)。\n\nJustice as the Charity of the Wise (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 272. Marx expresses his admiration for Leibniz in a letter to Engels on 10 May 1870. See Marx and Engels, MEW, Band 32 (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1974), 504.\n\n77 Marx and Engels, GI, 50.\n\n78 Even if one tacitly accepts the historicist model of linear, progressive time, does the materialist concept of history not dictate that there is no historical temporality when there is no expansion of productive forces, that it is possible that stretches of chronological time can become'stagnant’ to the extent that they are void of historical time, outside of history itself?\n\n79 Chapter 4 investigates in more detail the essential correspondence between the creation of new needs and the expansion of productive forces.\n\n37","previous_page":36,"next_page":38}