From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2006 - 14:42:44 EDT
1 and 3. The French -- which Marx edited last -- has 'Le secret de l'accumulation primitive', no reference to so-called. 2. I don't understand what the non-classic case Jerry has as his antecedent. Paul Quoting Michael Perelman <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>: > Smith's Original becomes Ursprunlich becomes primitive. I think that > it improves > with each mistranslation. > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 10:52:04AM -0400, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > > Hi Paul Z: > > > > A few queries: > > > > 1) the English translation Part Eight of Volume One of _Capital_ > has the > > title: "So-Called Primitive Accumulation". Yet, the title and > references > > to the topic in Ch. 26 doesn't contain "so-called" (sogenannte). > Should > > it be referred to with or without the "so-called"? Statements > like "In > > the history of primitive accumulation, are revolutions are > epoch-making > > that act as levers for the capitalist class in the course of its > formation > > ...." (p. 876 Penguin ed.) suggest that it was a historical reality > rather > > than merely a "so-called" phenomenon. > > > > 2) In the same para. cited above where Marx refers to the history > of > > primitive accumulation, he also refers to "the expropriation of > the > > agricultural producer, the peasant, from the soil" and "The > history of > > this expropriation assumes different aspects in different > countries, and > > runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, > and > > at different historical epochs. Only in England, which we > therefore > > take as our example, has it the classic form." Wouldn't this > suggest > > that, at least in this para., he was referring to primitive > accumulation > > and this form of expropriation [the expropriation of the > agricultural > > producer] as interchangeable expressions? > > .. > > 3) Should "ursprunglichen" be translated as "primitive" or > "original"? > > To what extent does the translation have any import in terms of the > debate > > of the contemporary relevance or irrelevance of this process? > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > > > I don't know about a documentary, but do remark that "primitive > acc." is > > > used by Marx only for the transition from feudalism to capitalism > in the > > > original constitution of the C.M. of P. > > > For the 19-21 centuries, I prefer usage saying simply > "expropriation > > > ...". For those interested, I documented my point in The > Commoner a > > > few years back. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT