{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","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":"cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","id":"cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","uuid":"cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","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":216,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","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/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/cfa147d3-494e-49cc-b356-7aceff50b181/search"},"page":{"printed_page":124,"pdf_page":128,"physical_index":128,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"4d571bd629d42459b042c3cc590cb86048c291ab42a21cc9dfeba2730c67d6ae"},"chapter":"Marx and the Concept of Historical Time","content":"However, and on the other hand, the purely relational quality of abstract labour must be grasped as immanent to, in fact as emerging from, the doubled relation between necessary and surplus-labour. We have already postulated this, and the bulk of Chapter 4 will redevelop this from the standpoint of the production of historical time. But what needs to be stressed here is that if, at its core, abstract labour originates from the doubled relation between necessary and surplus-labour, it also conceals this relation. The homogeneity, quantifiability and divisibility of abstract labour-time both expresses and disguises the doubled relation between necessary and surplus-labour; or, this expression and disguise exist within and at the same time. Hence the dual importance of money as the ‘materialisation of general labour-time’. The sale of every product of labour except labour-power ideally expresses (profit) and veils (price) the surpluslabour, the surplus-value, within these products. This realisation is retroactive and corresponds to the sense in which surplus-labour is internal to socially necessary labour. The sale of labourpower is more complex, but can be characterised in similar terms. It sets into motion both the expression (rate of profit) and the concealment (price of labour, the wage<sup>116</sup>) of the extraction of surplus-labour, thus latent surplus-value, from individual workers. This extraction is both prospective and retroactive<sup>117</sup>, and corresponds to the sense in which surplus-labour is defined against socially necessary labour. In Hegelian mode, the basic point here is that the ‘essential relation’ abstract labour does not only just exist, but is both manifestation [Erscheinung] and semblance [Schein], because it is itself based in the doubled relation between necessary and surplus-labour. Abstract labour-time simultaneously realises the fact that, within capitalism, ‘surplus-labour and necessary labour are mingled together’<sup>118</sup>, as well as the fact that surpluslabour is nothing other than ‘forced labour’.<sup>119</sup>\n\n<sup>113</sup> Marx, Capital 1, 301.\n\n<sup>114</sup> Marx, Grundrisse, 337. For Marx, ‘it is not at all contradictory, or, rather, the in-every-way mutually contradictory statements that labour is absolute poverty as object, on one side, and is, on the other side, the general possibility of wealth as subject and as activity, are reciprocally determined and follow from the essence of labour, such as it is presupposed by capital as its contradiction and as its contradictory being, and such as it, in turn, presupposes capital.’ Ibid. 296.\n\n<sup>115</sup> This point is indebted to the fifth chapter of Arthur’s The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital. See Arthur, The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital, 90, 109. In addition to this, see Christopher J. Arthur, ‘Marx, Hegel and the Value-Form’, in Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic: A Reexamination, 269-91. Tombazos is correct to point out that abstract labour is indifferent to the productivity of concrete labour, that it can thus only be ‘more or less extensive and intensive’, but it does not follow that abstract labour is a purely quantitative category, that, as he puts it, ‘the “quality” of abstract labour is precisely that it has no “quality”.’ Tombazos, Time in Marx, 112.\n\n124","previous_page":123,"next_page":125}