Dears,
as some of you already know I am puzzled by the low quality of the
translation of Capital, vol 1, Penguin. I need now to quote a part of it
(page 300), to textually ground an argument in a paper. I found this phrase
in the Penguin edition:
>But the past labour embodied in the labour-power, and the living labour it can
>>perform, *and* the daily cost of maintaining labour power and its daily
>>expenditure in work, are two totally different things.
which sound like:
- (i) the past labour embodied in the labour-power, and the living labour
it can perform;
- (ii) the daily cost of maintaining labour power and its daily expenditure
in work;
- (i) is a totally different thing from (ii).
This is wrong, to my reading: *and* should really in fact be translated as
[or, in other terms], so that the phrase be:
> But the past labour embodied in the labour-power, and the living labour it
>can > perform, or, in other terms, the daily cost of maintaining labour power
>and its daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things.
hence
- (i) the past labour embodied in the labour-power,or the daily cost of
maintaining labour power;
- (ii) the living labour it can perform, or its daily expenditure in work;
- (i) is a totally different thing from (ii).
It seems so straightforward to be stupid to send this post. But I never
exclude that *I* am the stupid. In other words: I ask your help, because
for me it is quite clear it is an error of translation - I checked the
Italian and the French translation, and as far as I can go also the German
original. But I want to be sure, and I am curious if there are different
readings of mine.
riccardo
==================================================================
Riccardo Bellofiore e-mail: bellofio@cisi.unito.it
Department of Economics Tel: (39) -35- 277505 (direct)
University of Bergamo (39) -35- 277501 (dept.)
Piazza Rosate, 2 (39) -11- 5819619 (home)
I-24129 Bergamo Fax: (39) -35- 249975
Italy
==================================================================