From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Dec 15 2002 - 10:32:28 EST
Re Michael E's [8176]: Previously, in [8173], I asked about a couple of translations by quotations from the "Marginal Notes on Wagner" (MNW) in Maxilien Rubel and Margaret Manale _Marx Without Myth_ (Harper & Row, 1975, p. 320): > 'WHERE THE > STATE ITSELF IS A CAPITALIST PRODUCER, AS IN THE >EXPLOITATION OF MINES, WOODLAND, ETC., ITS PRODUCT IS > A "COMMODITY" AND HAS THEREFORE THE SPECIFIC NATURE > OF EVERY OTHER COMMODITY['] (MEW, 19:370) (emphasis, i.e. > capitalization added, JL). > THE 'SURPLUS VALUE' IS DUE NOT TO THE > WORKING MAN BUT TO THE CAPITALIST' (MEW 19: 375)" emphasis > added again, JL). I then asked: > *** (1): Is the quote that begins 'Where the state is a capitalist > producer ....' an accurate rendering of the German original and > does it appear in the above words in the _CW_ translation? > I ask this since I couldn't find it in the MIA version. I partially answered this question in [8174] since I had located the passage in the CW -- and MIA -- version. Michael E adds: > "Wo der Staat selbst kapitalistischer Produzent, wie bei Exploitation von > Minen, Waldungen, etc., ist sein Produkt 'Ware' und besitzt daher den > spezifischen Charakter jeder andren Ware." (MEW19:370) > "Charakter" does not seem to be quite "nature" (= essence). Yes, but the translation in the CW/MIA has "character" rather than "nature". It would seem therefore that the translation that appears in the MIA is to be preferred over Rubel's and Manale's translation of this passage. How important is this to an interpretation of the passage in question? Well, I'm not sure. It certainly suggests that there are multiple interpretations of this passage which are possible that wouldn't have seemed as possible if all that we were looking at was the (mistaken) translation of Rubel/Manale. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also asked in [8173]: > ***(2): What is the rendering of the last quote about how the s "is due > not to the working man but to the capitalist" in the original German > and in the _CW_ translation? This quote, it seems to me, has > relevance for some recent writings by Chris, and comments by Nicky > on OPE-L. Michael answered: > The quote in question is not on MEW19:375. I found it on MEW19:382: I re-checked Rubel/Manale and I correctly transcribed what appeared in their book as the page number. So: either R/M made a mistake here with the page number or they were referring to a _different_ passage. Michael continues: > "Dunkelmann schiebt mir unter, dass 'der von den Arbeitern _allein_ > produzierte _Mehrwert_ den kapitalistischen Unternehmern > _ungebuehrlicher_ Weise verbleibe' (N. 3 p.114). Nun sage ich das > direkte Gegenteil; naemlich, dass die Warenproduktion notwendig auf > einem gewissen Punkt zur 'kapitalistischen' Warenproduktion wird, und > dass nach dem sie beherrschenden _Wertgesetz_ der 'Mehrwert' dem > Kapitalisten gebuehrt und nicht dem Arbeiter." (MEW19:382 > emphases in the original). > The problematic words here are "ungebuehrlich" and "gebuehren". > "ungebuehrlich" usually means "improper", "unseemly" etc. "gebuehren" > means "to be due to", "to deserve", "to be owing to". > Thus, in rough, literal translation, Wagner attributes to Marx that > "'the surplus-value produced _solely_ by the workers remains > _undeservedly_/_improperly_ in the capitalist enterprises' (N. 3 p.114). > But I say the complete opposite, namely, that at a certain point, > commodity production necessarily becomes 'capitalist' commodity > production and that, according to the _law of value_ that rules it, > the 'surplus-value' is properly owed to the capitalist and not to the > worker." > The translation provided in the summary seems off the mark. The translation in the _CW_/MIA is: "In fact I say the exact opposite: that the production of commodities must necessarily become 'capitalist' production of commodities at a certain point, and that according to the _law of value_ governing it, the 'surplus-value' rightly belongs to the capitalist and not the worker". So I agree -- *if R/M were referring to this passage* -- then they were off the mark ... significantly. Thanks for the translations and interpretation, Michael! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 17 2002 - 00:00:00 EST