[OPE-L:5578] Re: : Re: William of Ockam's Razor and Political Economy

From: howard engelskirchen (lhengels@igc.org)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 18:55:30 EDT


Re Chris's 5562

Chris, thanks very much for your note on the problems of translation with
regard to the "third peculiarity" and your reference to previous attacks on
the problem.  As I understand your comments in the excerpt 

1) you not that the german "wird" should be translated as '"becomes" the
form' rather than '"takes" the form';

2) you argue that Cyril Smith, having discovered the mistranslation, says
use value appears in the shape of value, concrete labor appears in the
shape of abstract labor, and social labor appears in the shape of private
labor; but,

3) you argue instead that Marx says use value becomes the form of value,
concrete labor becomes the form of abstract labor, and private labor
becomes the form of immediately social labor.

Correct me if I have the argument of your excerpt wrong.

Actually I don't think this account of mistranslation explains the
peculiarity of the third peculiarity.  It does not get at the peculiarity
of the German original, or, for that matter, of the French either, which
Marx insisted had independent scientific value.  The problem lies in
attempting to impose symmetry where in fact there is a distinction that
needs attention.  Instinctively we read, and want to read, for symmetry.
But there is a difference between "Erscheinungsform" and "Form"  in German
that is reflected in both the French and English translations:

1st peculiarity
German:  Gebrauchswert wird zur Erscheinungsform seines Gegenteils, des
Werts. 
French:  la valeur d'usage devient la forme de manifestation de son
contraire, la valeur.
English:  use value becomes the form of manifestation, the phenomenal form,
of its opposite, value.

2d peculiarity
German: dass konkrete Arbeit zur Erscheinungsform ihres Gegenteils,
abstrakt menschlicher Arbeit wird.
French:  la travail concret devient la forme de manifestation de son
contraire, le travail humain abstrait.
English:  concrete labor becomes the form under which its opposite,
abstract labor, manifests itself.

3rd peculiarity
German:  dass Privatarbeit zur Form ihres Gegenteils wird, zu Arbeit in
unmittelbar gesellschaftlicher Form.
French:  le travail concret . . . devient ainsi, quoique travail prive . .
. travail sous forme sociale immediate.
English:  the labour of private individuals taks the form of its opposite,
labour directly social in form.

The distinction is this:  use value is a form of appearance of value -- use
value is the sign and value the referent -- and concrete labor is a form of
appearance of abstract labor -- concrete labor is the sign and abstract
labor is the referent; but private labor becomes the form of its opposite,
immediately social labor.  In other words, private labor, because it is
directly exchangeable, actually *is* a form of immediately social labor.
Private labor isn't a sign of social labor;  in the commodity form it
actually becomes a form of social labor by being exchanged.  (Smoke is a
sign of fire; it is not itself fire.)

By contrast, it is not possible to say, as you do in the excerpt quoted,
that use value becomes the form of value or that concrete labor becomes the
form of abstract labor -- use value and concrete labor become *forms of
appearance* of value and abstract labor respectively. If we said that use
value became a form of value, then we would say that the natural properties
of a coat, or of gold, were actually a form of uniform, homogeneous human
labor.  But this is an absurdity.  The coat is a form of appearance, a
sign, of the linen's value; gold is a form of appearance of the value of
all other commodities.  Similarly, if we said concrete labor became a form
of abstract labor we would be saying that tailoring as such, or gold
producing, actually were kinds of undifferentiated human labor activity in
the abstract.  But this too is absurd.  Tailoring is tailoring.  Instead,
tailoring is a form of appearance, a sign, of the abstract labor expended
in making linen [no typo], and gold producing is a form of appearance of
the abstract labor expended in producing other commodities.

By contrast private labor, by being directly exchangeable, actually does
become a form of social labor and in this shows that commodity production,
insofar as it presupposes exchange, is from its inception a form of social
production.  Because it becomes the equivalent form for all other
commodities, gold producing labor is not only directly social, because it
can exchange for other commodities, but also general, because it can
exchange for anything.

Once the peculiarity of the third peculiarity is located, I'm not so sure I
would characterize the English as a mistranslation:  "takes the form of x"
usually will come across as a more natural English idiom than "becomes the
form of x."  

Comradely,

Howard






At 09:34 PM 5/13/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Sorry to be so late catching up n thisintersting thread. In Howard's 5531
>the following is stated:
>
>>
>>The other thing about the quote is that this is exactly what accounts for
>>the peculiarities of the equivalent form . . . or almost does.  The first
>>peculiarity is that use value becomes the phenomenal form of its opposite,
>>value.  So far so good.  The second peculiarity is that concrete labor
>>becomes the form under which abstract labor manifests itself -- again, the
>>sensibly concrete can be considered the form of appearance of the
>>abstractly general.  But then what of the third peculiarity?  Instead of
>>saying *private labor becomes the form of expression of social labor,* the
>>text reads that "the labour of private individuals takes the form of its
>>opposite, labour directly social in its form."
>>
>>What accounts for this peculiarity of the third peculiarity?
>>
>>In other words, the third peculiarity does not show the inversion we might
>>have expected.
>>
>What accounts for it is a mistranslation. I quote from a review article I
>wrote:
>
>"A mistranslation
>Now we come to an actual mistranslation which - astonishingly given its
>importance - has remained undiscovered until Cyril Smith recently drew
>attention to it in his paper 'Hegel, Economics, and Marx's Capital'' (in
>History, Economic History and the Future of Marxism eds T. Brotherstone and
>Geoff Pilling, Porcupine Press, London 1996, p. 245-46).
>In the first chapter of Capital Marx undertook a study of the interchanges
>of use value and value, concrete and abstract labour, private and social
>labour. In the equivalent form of value there were said to be three
>'peculiarities' (Collected Works  35, pp.66-69). The third one was that the
>labour of private individuals 'becomes the form' of its opposite, labour
>directly social in its form: 'daß Privatarbeit zur Form ihres Gegenteils
>wird, zu Arbeit in unmittelbar gesellschaftlicher Form' (MEW 23 p.73). Yet
>in Collected Works 35 this is mistranslated as 'takes the form' (p.69),
>Smith rightly complains.
>Unfortunately, having brought off this coup, Smith then 'blows it' in his
>gloss by muddling the six categories in question; he writes: 'use-value,
>concrete labour and social labour ... appear in the shape of value,
>abstract labour and private labour, respectively' (p.246). But what Marx
>says about the three peculiarities of the equivalent form is that
>use-value, concrete labour and private labour become the form of value,
>abstract labour and immediately social labour, respectively. One can find
>this account buried in the 1859 Contribution... and the first chapter of
>the first edition of Capital, but they first appear prominently as
>'peculiarities' with separate headings in the Value-Form Appendix (Mohun
>edition pp.17-21). Then they are repeated without headings in the final
>version of chapter 1 (Collected Works 35, pp.66-69).
>It is a remarkable fact that all three translations of Capital made this
>same mistake; but both existing translations of the first edition Appendix
>got it right. Interestingly, the Appendix lists a 'fourth peculiarity'
>which turns out to be 'fetishism of the commodity-form'. Obviously Marx
>realised it had a more general importance so he then wrote it up as an
>independent section of the first chapter for the second edition."
>
>The private labour concerned will inthe end be that in gold production.
>
>Chris Arthur
>
>
>
>
>17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT