the second of my remarks is in some part critical of Habermas's arguments; and the final one is really a question, an enquiry about the differences between Habermas's views and those of Adorno. 1. Habermas raises an issue both of great importance and of formidable complexity in suggesting that certain transformations of time-experience are intrinsically involved with so-called "modernism" in art. He concentrates his discussion upon the "secret" appeal to the classical buried in modernism, and upon the temporal self-destructiveness of the avantgarde which is constantly implicated in the moment of its own dissolution. This theme undeniably connects with a fondness for the scandalous, a distaste for all convention which however acknowledges that today's scandals are tomorrow's conventions - and hence is perhaps unable in fact to realise the impact of that very "negation" which it seeks. I find Habermas's analysis of these matters both subtle and thought-provoking. But I think it is possible to connect them more directly than Habermas does, in this particular paper at least, with transformations of time-space relations introduced by the spread of industrial capitalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries. I am impressed by a convergence of recent work in the philosophy of time, social history, and urban theory, upon what can be called the commodification of time-space with the formation of industrial capitalism; this work, I think, can be directly connected with Marx's classical characterisation of the "commodity."' In capitalism, Marx makes clear, time as quantified form - becomes fundamental to the intersection of class relations within the labour-process. The quantification of time is the medium of the exploitative generation of surplus-value, in contrast to the "direct" appropriation of surplus production or labour in agrarian classdivided civilisations.