Moishe Postone and the Vicissitudes of Abstraction

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY
M. Jay
{"title":"Moishe Postone and the Vicissitudes of Abstraction","authors":"M. Jay","doi":"10.1086/708115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T he only task more difficult than writing a talk on the central role of abstraction in Moishe Postone’s remarkable oeuvre is trying to condense its argument into a mere 20 minutes, producing, as it were, an abstract of its essential points. My sole consolation is that any attempt to do so performatively exemplifies the impoverishment of human life caused by the process of abstraction that Moishe so powerfully lamented. A great deal has been written about his critique of that process—indeed, the literature on his work is no less robust today than it was when his magnum opus, Time, Labor, and Social Domination, was published a quarter century ago—and I do not want to squander my limited time doing what Moishe himself was so often forced to do: painstakingly rehearse the main argument of that book. Instead, I want to focus on the ways in which he conceptualized the antidote to what he saw as the twin tyrannies of abstract labor and abstract time and then finish with a few remarks defending the virtues of a certain version of abstraction, which I think Moishe would have shared. Still, a few quick points do have to bemade about his larger argument for those in the audience who do not have it at their fingertips. Moishe challenged what he disparagingly called “traditional Marxism” by rejecting the idea that a critique of capitalism can be made from the point of view of a transhistorical or ontological notion of unalienated labor, labor that is concrete rather than abstract. Nor can it be criticized from the point of view of production per se as opposed to inequitable distribution. Instead, it requires understanding that the duality of concrete and abstract labor is a function of the capitalist mode of production itself, which also generates the contrasting categories of value and wealth. Value is the objectification or reification of abstracted labor, in which the qualitative specificity of producing objects for use is transformed into the quantitative fungibility of commodified labor power","PeriodicalId":43410,"journal":{"name":"Critical Historical Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/708115","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/708115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

T he only task more difficult than writing a talk on the central role of abstraction in Moishe Postone’s remarkable oeuvre is trying to condense its argument into a mere 20 minutes, producing, as it were, an abstract of its essential points. My sole consolation is that any attempt to do so performatively exemplifies the impoverishment of human life caused by the process of abstraction that Moishe so powerfully lamented. A great deal has been written about his critique of that process—indeed, the literature on his work is no less robust today than it was when his magnum opus, Time, Labor, and Social Domination, was published a quarter century ago—and I do not want to squander my limited time doing what Moishe himself was so often forced to do: painstakingly rehearse the main argument of that book. Instead, I want to focus on the ways in which he conceptualized the antidote to what he saw as the twin tyrannies of abstract labor and abstract time and then finish with a few remarks defending the virtues of a certain version of abstraction, which I think Moishe would have shared. Still, a few quick points do have to bemade about his larger argument for those in the audience who do not have it at their fingertips. Moishe challenged what he disparagingly called “traditional Marxism” by rejecting the idea that a critique of capitalism can be made from the point of view of a transhistorical or ontological notion of unalienated labor, labor that is concrete rather than abstract. Nor can it be criticized from the point of view of production per se as opposed to inequitable distribution. Instead, it requires understanding that the duality of concrete and abstract labor is a function of the capitalist mode of production itself, which also generates the contrasting categories of value and wealth. Value is the objectification or reification of abstracted labor, in which the qualitative specificity of producing objects for use is transformed into the quantitative fungibility of commodified labor power
莫伊舍·波斯通与抽象的变迁
唯一比写一篇关于抽象在莫伊谢·波斯通非凡作品中的核心作用的演讲更困难的任务是,试图将其论点浓缩到短短20分钟内,并将其要点抽象出来。我唯一的安慰是,任何这样做的尝试都是莫伊舍强烈哀叹的抽象过程导致的人类生活的贫困。关于他对这一过程的批评,已经写了很多文章——事实上,今天关于他的作品的文献并不比四分之一个世纪前他的代表作《时间、劳动和社会支配》出版时那么有力——我不想浪费我有限的时间做莫伊舍自己经常被迫做的事情:煞费苦心地排练那本书的主要论点。相反,我想专注于他将解药概念化的方式,以对抗他所认为的抽象劳动和抽象时间的双重暴虐,然后以几句为某个抽象版本的优点辩护的话结束,我认为莫伊舍会分享这一点。尽管如此,对于观众中那些没有掌握的人来说,他更大的论点确实有一些令人困惑的地方。莫伊舍对他轻蔑地称之为“传统马克思主义”的东西提出了质疑,他拒绝接受这样一种观点,即对资本主义的批判可以从非剥夺劳动的跨历史或本体论概念的角度进行,即劳动是具体的而非抽象的。也不能从生产本身而不是分配不均的角度来批评它。相反,它需要理解,具体劳动和抽象劳动的双重性是资本主义生产方式本身的功能,资本主义生产方式也产生了价值和财富的对比类别。价值是抽象劳动的物化或物化,其中生产使用对象的定性特异性转化为商品化劳动力的定量可替代性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信