Re: [OPE-L] Grundrisse. Help

From: David Yaffe (david@DANYAF.PLUS.COM)
Date: Sat Jul 22 2006 - 07:10:56 EDT


Thanks Paul for actually going to an article where the point was clearly
made. It was clearly a issue in our discussions at the time.  Footnote 83
in my Value and Price in Marx's Capital - Revolutionary Communist No 1 p40
- completed in October 1974 explains the difference between Verwertung and
Realisierung. [Online at
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/marxism/articles/]

In my previous note to Chris,  I said Realization without checking the
Grundrisse. Sorry about that but my German is somewhat rusty these days.

David Yaffe


  At 19:22 21/07/2006 +0100, you wrote:
><?fontfamily><?param Times New Roman>
>Chris,
>
>In
>
>
>Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, 9, Autumn 1974,
>
>  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>Defining Productive Labour for Capital, by Paul Bullock
>
>
>
>
>
>you will find the following footnote:
>
>
>
>fn11.       K. Marx, Grundrisse Der Kritik Ocr Politischen Okonomie. Dietz
>Verlag, Berlin
>
>1953, p.528, where we find, ". . .und es ist klar, dass diese relative
>Entwertung des Kapitals seiner Verwertung nicht :usetzen, sondern nur von
>thr abnehmen kann;. . ." Nicolaus, on his page 634 translates Verwertung
>as Realisation. This is clearly wrong. Both from the context and Marx's
>own usage we know that Verwertung is to be read self expansion and
>reproduction. Thus when Marx actually talks of the process of realisation
>of value he uses Realisierung. For example p171 (Berlin), where we find
>'Realisienung' self realisation correctly treated by Nicolaus on his page
>259. Again realisiert - p132 in the German - is correctly treated as
>realised, p221 in the English.
>
>
>
>
>
>I always wondered why Nicolaus, in his forward, blatantly ignored ie no
>open acknowledgement - the good work that D McLellan had done in bringing
>the Grundrisse to the attention of English lang.readers. ( he Quotes
>Engels out of  McLellan in fn 52 alone), esp McLellan's Marx's Grundrisse
>of 1971.
>
>
>
>You might note that the MELI version uses the originals for quotations
>from texts and not marx's own notes, ( N doesn't refer to this but if you
>go to p984 of the 1953 Dietz Verlag ed. and read note 35 you will see
>this.) whereas N. uses marx's notes and he says this on p66 (his Note on
>Translation), but it is not clear how he got these, since he himself says
>that the 1939 editors  switched passages at times into footnotes and N
>says himself that 'There is no way of distinguishing them. This would
>require checking  with the handwritten manuscript in Moscow' (Note on
>Translation  p 65 ). So it is unclear how /if he came to read the
>originals to do this. If you can explain this to me it will take a weight
>off my mind ( only joking!).
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>paul bullock
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM>Christopher Arthur
>To: <mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:31 PM
>Subject: [OPE-L] Grundrisse. Help
>
>Comrades and Friends
>I have been commissioned to write a short piece on the translation and
>reception of the Grundrisse in UK and US.
>I would be grateful for amy comments on the two translations, and
>especially anything you can recall in the way of review articles etc. on
>the Nicolaus translation when it came out. Or indeed discussions of the
>bits that appeared earlier.
>Chris Arthur<?/fontfamily>


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT