From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Apr 28 2007 - 03:13:47 EDT
One advantage of the concepts of detour and roundabout over the concept of mediated is the preservation of the temporal sense. To say that the expression of value is mediated does not express well that it is not im-mediate in a temporal sense. However, detour and roundaboutness do suggest temporal deferment, the absence of immediacy. This detour or roundaboutness creates problems in a credit economy if it is too time consuming. It's difficult to get at that by simply saying that the expression of value is mediated. That seems to be a logical not temporal point. Some argue that Hegel's logic abstracts from real temporal processes. So there may be a reason why Marx is not strictly committed to Hegelian concepts. Differering here with Chris A, I think Michael has a strong argument to use detour and/or roundabout in translation. Rakesh > I listed three versions of the passage from Marx that uses the term > "detour" or "roundabout way." You can see that there is a variation > between > using the pronoun "we" or "commodity owners" as the subject, and that > expressions like "equating to" or "equating with" are used. At any rate, > this is one example of the "detour" Kuruma is referring too. I have used > it > in my translation too, although in some respects "roundabout way" (not > "roundabout way of saying") might be better. For most of the passages > quoted > from Marx in my translation of Kuruma's book I have relied on Hans > Ehrbar's > excellent translation, but here I think I will have to make a number of > alterations. > > I would be interested if anyone has an alternative translation of this > passage from Capital that begins: "Indem z.B. der Rock als Wertig der > Leinwand gleichgesetzt wird, wird die in ihm steckende Arbeit der in ihr > steckenden Arbeit gleichgesetzt…" > > > "By equating, for example, the coat as a thing of value to the linen, we > equate the labor embedded in the coat with the labor embedded in the > linen. > Now it is true that the tailoring labor which makes the coat is concrete > labor of a different sort from the weaving labor which makes the linen. > But > the act of equating tailoring with weaving reduces the former in fact to > what is really equal in the two kinds of labor, to the characteristic they > have in common of being human labor. This is a roundabout way of saying > that > weaving too, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to distinguish it > from tailoring, and, consequently is abstract human labor." (Penguin, p. > 142) > > > > "By making the coat the equivalent to the linen, we equate the labor > embodied in the former to that of the latter. Now, it is true that the > tailoring, which makes the coat, is concrete labor of a different sort > from > the weaving which makes the linen. But the act of equating it to the > weaving, reduces the tailoring to that which is really equal in the two > kinds of labor, to their common character of human labor. In this > roundabout > way, then, the fact is expressed, that weaving also, in so far as it > weaves > value, has nothing to distinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is > abstract human labor." (International, pp. 60-1) > > > > "By setting the coat, for example, as a thing of value equal to the linen, > the commodity owners also set the labor embedded in the coat equal to the > labor embedded in the linen. It is true, tailoring, which makes the coat, > is > concrete labor of a different sort than weaving, which makes the linen. > But > by equating the tailoring with weaving, the commodity owners reduce > tailoring in fact to what is really equal in the two kinds of labor, > namely, > that they are both human labor. Through this detour over tailoring they > say > that weaving too, in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to distinguish > it from tailoring, and consequently, is abstract labor." (Ehrbar) >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT