{"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":39,"pdf_page":43,"physical_index":43,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"2211abc17ff25264da36dd05d6ea9e3f73ff806605c488c4dc8b29b2b52c9a15"},"chapter":"第一章唯物主义历史观:一种时间解读","content":"之所以被理解为“非物质劳动者”，是因为他们是历史思想的人格化(他们不是真正的起源)。因此，阶级对于唯物主义历史观是至关重要的:它是唯物主义历史观思想的中心条件。正如巴里巴尔所说，“马克思…………把劳动分工的构想扩展到最充分的程度………”，据此，他“在劳动分工和意识分工的双重层面上，把社会划分为阶级，因此，也把社会划分为阶级，作为一种条件或一种思想结构。”85\n\n然而，我们应该在这里提出两点警告。首先，虽然分工和阶级可以被理解为“历史的主要力量”(到目前为止)，但它们不应该像劳动和需要一样，被理解为历史的本体论的原始力量。劳动分工和阶级分工的重要性是毋庸置疑的，但从“历史”的基本可理解性的角度来看，它们在逻辑上和本体论上都与劳动和需要“相去甚远”。86第二，我们应该相当谨慎地看待劳动分工和阶级是如何被超历史地描绘出来的。虽然可以把劳动分工看作是真正的跨历史的，从历史第三时刻隐含的原始的性别劳动分工，到资本主义之后生产者有意识和理性控制下的某种技术劳动分工，但阶级就不能这么说了:共产主义内部生活资料的社会化生产，当然不能被看作是一种“阶级行为”。87我们还需要小心，不要把劳动分工和阶级分工过度本体论化，也就是说，不要把它们在特定生产方式(特别是资本主义)层面上的意义扩展到整个历史(例如，“生产资料的排他性所有权”是阶级形成的一个特定的资本主义特征，然而，诸如“与剩余产品相关的人类的分化和分组”之类的东西可能被理解为在迄今为止的所有历史中都是有效的。然而—一这一点引导我们进入第二章——劳动分工和阶级划分是本论文不能忽视的一个基本问题，但马克思并没有为我们提供回答这个问题的方法。简单地说:我们如何理解个人的、社会的和历史的时间性之间的关系?劳动分工和阶级分工可能是人类个体化的社会性的历史表现(“个人”可能首先通过劳动分工和阶级分工实现自身)，但这并不能解释个人行为是如何时间化的，也不能解释由此产生的时间性是如何相互关联的\n\n85 Balibar, The Philosophy of Marx, 46, 44.\n\n86 There is a material basis to history that is structured by human need and the labour that creates the means of satisfying this need. It is because of this basis that the division of labour and classes become intelligible.\n\n87 Marx and Engels never develop a conceptual relationship between class and the first historical act in The German Ideology, and for good reason: whilst it might be suggested that the first historical act has, on some level, been structured by class relations until now, class cannot have a conceptual place within this act, even if it is (to date) a condition of thinking this act.\n\n39","previous_page":38,"next_page":40}