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