The Rich Implications of Marx’s Conception of Time

Time is a very important category in the study of philosophical theory. Marxist philosophical research also pays close attention to the problem of time. In traditional Marxist philosophy textbooks, time is set up as a category associated with space, and together they are interpreted as the mode of existence of material motion. However, once we delve into certain texts of Marx, we find that Marx himself endowed the category of time with rich and concrete connotations. Marx’s conception of time possesses at least three layers of implication: as a measure of the value of commodities, as a measure marking human liberation, and as a measure validating social history.

时间是哲学理论研究中一个非常重要的范畴。马克思主义哲学研究也非常关注时间问题，在传统的马克思主义哲学教科书中，时间是作为与空间相关联的范畴来设置的，它们一同被阐释为物质运动的存在方式。可是，一旦我们深入马克思的某些文本，就会发现马克思本人赋予了时间范畴丰富而具体的内涵。马克思的时间观至少拥有三重意蕴：作为衡量商品价值的尺度、作为标志人之解放的尺度以及作为证成社会历史的尺度。

The first layer of implication in Marx’s conception of time is labor time, which appears as the measure of the value of commodities. In order to reveal the special laws governing the operation of capitalist society, Marx starts from the phenomenon of commodities, takes the dual character of labor as his foundation, seizes on the problems of use-value and value, and unfolds an analysis of labor time, gradually uncovering the process and essence of capitalist production. Marx’s analysis of “labor time” concentrates on the following aspects: First, he establishes the quantitative relationship of exchangeability among different commodities on the basis of labor time. In Marx’s view, the reason commodities are exchangeable with one another is not only that they all possess use-value, but, more importantly, that they have the same value. Although the value of commodities is homogeneous, they differ in magnitude, i.e., in quantitative proportional relations. Marx holds that the proportion of value among commodities can be traced back to the proportion of the labor time expended in producing them. For as values, all commodities are only definite quantities of congealed labor time. [1]1 See Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1: “As values, all commodities are only definite quantities of congealed labor time.” Second, he reveals how labor time determines the value of commodities. Marx seizes on the key point of socially necessary labor time, arguing that the magnitude of value of a commodity is not determined by the actual labor time of an individual commodity producer in producing a certain product, but rather depends on the time required to produce that commodity under the existing normal conditions of social production, with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent in society — that is, socially necessary labor time. [2]2 See Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1: “The labor time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.” Moreover, Marx clearly points out that as the level of social productive forces rises, the socially necessary labor time needed to produce a commodity decreases, the quantity of labor congealed in that commodity becomes smaller, and the value of that commodity becomes smaller; conversely, the opposite holds. From this, Marx summarizes the following law: the magnitude of value of a commodity is directly proportional to the quantity of labor embodied in it and inversely proportional to the productivity of that labor. [3]3 See Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1: “The magnitude of the value of a commodity is directly proportional to the quantity of labor embodied in it and inversely proportional to the productivity of that labor.” Third, he indicates that appropriating surplus labor time is the basic means by which capitalists carry out exploitation. The discovery of the theory of surplus value is a major theoretical contribution of Marx; it reveals the secret of capitalist exploitation. In essence, surplus value is the value created by workers during surplus labor time but appropriated without compensation by the capitalist. Hence, the capitalist’s means of exploitation is actually the manipulation of surplus labor time. In this sense, we can say that without surplus labor time, there can be no creation of surplus value. It goes without saying that, for Marx, labor time becomes the measure weighing the value of commodities, and the uncompensated appropriation of surplus labor time is the means of capitalist exploitation.

马克思时间观的第一重意蕴是劳动时间，它作为衡量商品价值的尺度而出现。为了揭示资本主义社会运行的特殊规律，马克思从商品现象出发，以劳动的二重性为基础，抓住使用价值和价值问题，展开了劳动时间相关分析，逐步揭秘了资本主义生产的过程与实质。马克思对“劳动时间”的分析集中在以下几个方面：一是把不同商品之间可交换的量的关系确立在劳动时间上。在马克思看来，商品之间之所以具有可交换性，不仅因为它们都具有使用价值，更重要的是，具有相同的价值。商品的价值虽然是同质的，但它们有着量上的大小之别，即量的比例关系。马克思认为，商品之间价值的比例，可以追溯至生产它们的劳动时间的比例。因为作为价值，一切商品都只是一定量的凝固的劳动时间。二是揭示了劳动时间是如何决定商品价值的。马克思抓住社会必要劳动时间这个关键点，认为商品的价值量不是由单个商品生产者生产某种产品的实际劳动时间决定，而是取决于在现有的社会正常生产条件下，在社会平均劳动熟练程度和劳动强度下，生产这一商品的时间，也即社会必要劳动时间。不仅如此，马克思还明确指出，随着社会生产力水平的提高，生产商品所需的社会必要劳动时间越少，凝结在该商品中的劳动量就越小，该商品的价值就越小；反之亦然。由此一来，马克思概括出如下规律：商品的价值量与体现在商品中的劳动量成正比，与这一劳动的生产率成反比。三是指出了占有剩余劳动时间是资本家进行剥削的基本手段。剩余价值理论的发现是马克思的重大理论贡献，它揭示了资本家剥削的秘密。从本质上讲，剩余价值是工人在剩余劳动时间内创造的但被资本家无偿占有的价值，因而资本家剥削的手段实际上就是操控剩余劳动时间。在这种意义上，我们可以说，没有剩余劳动时间，就不可能有剩余价值的创造。不言而喻，在马克思那里，劳动时间成为权衡商品价值的尺度，无偿占有剩余劳动时间便是资本家进行剥削的手段。

The second layer of implication in Marx’s conception of time is leisure time, which appears as the measure marking human liberation. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx uses the developmental condition of human beings as a criterion to divide social formations. In his view, the liberation and development of human beings as the subjects of society roughly passes through three stages: the stage of personal dependence, the stage of dependence on things, and the stage of the free and all-round development of the individual. [4]4 See Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Notebook V: “The first stage is that of personal dependence... the second stage is that of personal independence founded on objective dependence... the third stage is that of the free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth.” The pre-capitalist period belongs to the stage of personal dependence, the capitalist period to the stage of dependence on things, and the future communist period to the stage of the free and all-round development of the individual. According to Marx’s view, the actual time of an individual can be roughly divided into two relatively opposed yet complementary parts: labor time and leisure time. For the individual, the longer the labor time, the shorter the leisure time; the higher the proportion of leisure time in the individual’s life time, the more the individual tends toward a state of free and all-round development. In order to point the way toward self-liberation for the working class, Marx, in his investigation of alienated labor and his critique of capitalist production, not only actively supported the workers’ struggle for a normal working day, but also explicitly opposed the capitalists’ extension of workers’ labor time, and scientifically foresaw the significance of leisure time in future communist society. On the one hand, for Marx, the greater the right of social members to freely dispose of time, the greater the space for human liberation and the free and all-round development of the individual. With the development of society, especially the increase in productive forces, labor time will gradually decrease, while leisure time will continuously increase; leisure time becomes, to a certain extent, a mark of the individual’s liberation from external constraints and attainment of freedom, and even a measure of wealth. On the other hand, Marx emphasizes the positive role of labor time, as opposed to leisure time, in future society. Because in future communist society, since the individual has shed various natural and social fetters, labor is no longer a means of making a living but becomes the primary need of social life; labor time is no longer a negative symbol of the suppression of freedom and the restriction of human development, but instead acquires a necessary and positive function. The share of the means of subsistence each producer receives is determined by his labor time. This means both that, at the social level, labor time regulates the appropriate proportion between various labor functions and various needs, and that, at the individual level, labor time measures the individual producer’s share in the common labor and his share in the common consumer goods. [5]5 See Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875), Section I: “The individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor... The same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.” It is in this sense that disposable leisure time becomes an important measure marking human liberation and the free and all-round development of the individual.

马克思时间观的第二重意蕴是闲暇时间，它作为标志人之解放的尺度而出现。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思曾以人的发展状况作为标准来划分社会形态。在他看来，作为社会主体的人的解放和发展，大致要经历人的依赖性、物的依赖性和人的自由全面发展三个阶段，前资本主义时期属于人的依赖性阶段，资本主义时期属于物的依赖性阶段，未来共产主义时期属于人的自由全面发展阶段。按照马克思的看法，人的现实时间大体可以划分为两个相对而又互补的部分：劳动时间和闲暇时间。对个体而言，劳动时间越长，闲暇时间则越短；闲暇时间在个体生活时间中占比愈高，个体就愈趋于自由全面发展状态。为了给工人阶级指明自我解放的道路，马克思在对异化劳动的考察、对资本主义生产的批判中，既积极支持工人争取正常工作日的斗争，又明确反对资本家延长工人的劳动时间，还科学地预见了闲暇时间在未来共产主义社会中的重要意义。一方面，在马克思那里，社会成员对时间的自由支配权越大，人之解放、人的自由全面发展的空间就越大。随着社会的发展，特别是生产力的提高，劳动时间会逐渐减少，闲暇时间则会不断增加，闲暇时间在一定程度上成为人摆脱外在约束而获得自由的标志，甚至成为财富的尺度。另一方面，马克思强调作为与闲暇时间相对的劳动时间在未来社会中的积极作用。由于在未来共产主义社会中，由于人摆脱了自然和社会的各种束缚，劳动不再是谋生的手段，而变成了社会生活的第一需要，劳动时间不再被作为压制自由、限制人之发展的消极象征，相反获得了必要而又积极的功能。每个生产者在生活资料中得到的份额由其劳动时间决定，这既意味着在社会层面劳动时间调节着各种劳动职能与各种需要的适当比例，又意味着在个体层面劳动时间计量着生产者在共同劳动中的个人所占份额、计量着生产者在共同消费品中个人所占份额。正是在这个意义上，可支配的闲暇时间成为标识人之解放、人的自由全面发展的重要尺度。

The third layer of implication in Marx’s conception of time is social time, which appears as the measure validating social history. Yu Wujin once advanced a very important view: Marx’s conception of time is by no means the “natural time” advocated by traditional philosophy and Marxist philosophy textbooks, but rather “social time.” [6]6 Yu Wujin (俞吾金, 1948–2014) was a prominent Chinese Marxist philosopher. The reference is to his argument that Marx’s time is social time, not natural time, a view he developed in works such as *The Social Dimension of Time in Marx’s Philosophy*. The question is: how exactly should this “social time” be understood? First, at the macro level, Marx takes practical productive activity as the starting point of his conception of time, completely discarding abstract views of nature and history, and, through the important medium of modern industry, achieves the unity of natural history and human history. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx explicitly states that industry is the actual historical relationship between nature and man, and hence between natural science and man; industry becomes the open display of man’s essential powers. [7]7 See Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Third Manuscript: “Industry is the actual historical relationship of nature, and therefore of natural science, to man... it is the open book of man’s essential powers.” Clearly, Marx here regards industry as the vivid and concrete embodiment of man’s practical activity. That is to say, it is precisely the rise and development of industry that turns natural science and the science of man into a single science, and unifies natural history and human history into a single history. Thus, within this perspective, nature that is remote from man becomes meaningless; history is the true natural history of man. [8]8 See Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Third Manuscript: “History itself is a real part of natural history—of nature’s coming to be man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.” Second, at the micro level, Marx focuses on capitalist commodity production to interpret his conception of time, understanding productive labor as the source of time. In this regard, Marx has a very important passage: “Labor is the living, shaping fire; it is the transience of things, their temporality, which is manifested as their formation by living time.” [9]9 See Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Notebook IV: “Labor is the living, shaping fire; it is the transience of things, their temporality, which is manifested as their formation by living time.” This shows that labor not only creates products and creates time, but also introduces time into the world. Therefore, “labor” as productive activity and “living time” possess an inner consistency.

马克思时间观的第三重意蕴是社会时间，它作为证成社会历史的尺度而出现。俞吾金曾经提出一个很重要的观点：马克思的时间观绝不是传统哲学和马克思主义哲学教科书所主张的“自然时间”，而是“社会时间”。问题是，这种“社会时间”到底应该如何理解呢？其一，在宏观层面上，马克思以生产实践活动作为时间观的出发点，彻底摒弃了抽象的自然观和历史观，并通过现代工业这个重要的媒介实现自然史与人类史的统一。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思明确谈到，工业是自然界与人之间，因而也是自然科学与人之间的现实的历史关系，工业成为人的本质力量的公开展示。显然，马克思在这里把工业视为人的实践活动生动而具体的体现。也就是说，正是工业的兴起与发展，将自然科学与人的科学变成同一门科学，将自然史与人类史统一成了唯一的历史。于是，在此视野中，那种远离人的自然变得毫无意义，历史是人的真正的自然史。其二，在微观层面上，马克思着眼于资本主义商品生产活动来阐释时间观，把生产劳动理解为时间的源头。在这方面，马克思有一段非常重要的论述，“劳动是活的、塑造形象的火；是物的易逝性，物的暂时性，这种易逝性和暂时性表现为这些物通过活的时间而被赋予形式”。这表明，劳动不仅创造了产品，创造了时间，还把时间引进了世界。因此，作为生产活动的“劳动”与“活的时间”具有内在的一致性。

In summary, in stark contrast to the traditional philosophical conception of time, Marx’s understanding and grasp of the problem of time is always placed within the specific social conditions of capitalist society; he never transcends concrete historical conditions to discuss the problem of time in a metaphysical manner. For the academic community, deeply excavating, sorting out, and exploring the rich connotations of Marx’s conception of time is a research topic that urgently needs to be advanced.

综上，与传统哲学的时间观大相径庭，马克思对时间问题的认识和把握，总是放在资本主义社会这一特定社会条件下，从不超越具体历史条件，以形而上学方式来论及时间问题。对于学术界来说，深入发掘、梳理以及探讨马克思时间观的丰富内涵，是一项亟待推进的研究课题。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗