Yes interestingly this is being billed as the first translation which wasn't done by socialists. Would be curious to see how it differs from previous versions, and what people familiar with previous versions think about it
The translation into colloquial American English reads ok but the 15-page Foreword and a 30-page Editor’s Introduction are both unhelpful and undermine the rest of the book. The Preface is mainly gibberish by someone who dismisses as ‘fantasy’ what she calls ‘a perfectly rational, controlled and transparent communist political economy on the far side of a capitalist epoch’; according to her, Capital is a work of philosophy, a ‘deep ontological and epistemological critique of capitalism’. The Editor, too, sees Marx as basically a philosopher and opines that in Capital ‘nowhere really does Marx condemn the capital system or call for revolution’. But, then, both of them are philosophers who only want to interpret the world.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Wendy Brown preface. Here's the full quote that alb mentioned:
Brown wrote: Leaving aside the fantasy of a perfectly rational, controlled, and transparent communist political economy on the far side of a capitalist epoch, the brilliance and enduring relevance of Marx’s anatomy of capitalism rest in his formulating of its object as at once singularly theoretical and material, as human made yet beyond human control, with more power to set the conditions for all planetary life than anything the species has ever unleashed. (xxvi)
Doesn't it sort of make the reader not want to bother with the book if you describe as "fantasy" something Marx, who was a communist after all, and millions of other workers strove for? A socialist/communist society, which is implied throughout the pages of Vol. 1, is also the overcoming of all of capitalism's socially and environmentally destructive effects. Marx highlighted these consequences of capitalism throughout his work, which Brown echoes in her preface. If a society in which people directly relate with one another in order to meet their needs without the mediation of markets or exchange is just a "fantasy," then it's not clear what Brown thinks people should actually do. Similarly, Marx also never argued that a socialist/communist society would be "perfectly rational"—that would be an impossible dystopia—so it's unclear who or what Brown is critiquing there.
In any case, it's also worth mentioning that there is plenty to critique in Ernest Mandel's introduction to Fowkes' translation, in addition to the editorial/introductory content in the Marx-Engels Collected Works, which uses the Moore-Aveling translation in Vol. 35. In other words, I wouldn't dismiss Paul Reitter's (American-English) translation on the basis of a preface or the editorial content. It seems like a nice contribution, filled with explanatory notes about how certain passages were translated. I don't think Reitter's translation renders the previous translations obsolete though, and neither does Reitter himself:
Reitter wrote: Of course, to identify gaps between what a translation promises to do and what it does isn’t to suggest that it lacks merit. I regard the Moore-Aveling and Fowkes editions of Capital as works that for the most part treat their source material carefully and thoughtfully. They also have moments of inventive brilliance, such as when Moore and Aveling translate "das Bürgertum und seinen doktinären Wortführern" as "bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors." (lxxi)
The Moore-Aveling translation was never so "faulty" that a new translation was ever needed in the first place; many people still use and cite the MECW. One just has to bear in mind the criticisms that have been made against it, and the same applies to Fowkes' translation. There will always be people criticizing any translation, which they should. If you want Marx in his own words, then you have to read the German original. I'm also fairly certain that people will criticize Reitter's translation as well.
Steven. wrote: Yes interestingly this is being billed as the first translation which wasn't done by socialists. Would be curious to see how it differs from previous versions, and what people familiar with previous versions think about it
Reitter says he’s a Marxist but not a Leninist for what it’s worth, in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG0rQi6JwkU
Fantasy is probably a nicer way of putting it unless something extraordinary is down the pike.
The new translation is pretty decent. It is certainly more readable in places and have definitively improved certain sections that were so horribly translated that unless you could consult the original German, you'd get the wrong idea about what Marx's was trying to say.
But as adri's comment suggests, it's not a perfect translation. There are other sections where the Fowkes translation is superior. Ritter's translation seems to focus on readability and capturing the essence of Marx's argument rather than being a 'true' translation (as in, some words may be left out, but the overall meaning is not lost).
While I am reading, I also have a copy of Fowkes and a German version to consult when a passage is a bit strange.
For those of us not in possession perhaps someone could transcribe the opening of Chapter 33 so that we can compare?
Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology. It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them.
Westartfromhere, I was looking for chapter 33 in the new translation and only now realized that there is a change in the chapter breakdown. Chapter 33 is now chapter 25.
Anyway, here is the passage you asked to compare:
Political economy as a matter of principle, tries to perpetuate the convenient tendency to confuse two kinds of private property. One is property based on a person's own labour; the other is capitalist property, diametrically opposed to the first kind, and in fact produced by its destruction. The process of original accumulation is more or less complete in Western Europe, the homeland of political economy. Here, either the capitalist mode of production has taken control of the whole nation's production directly, or, if conditions haven't advanced as far, it at least indirectly controls the social strata of people who exist alongside it in a state of decay because they remain because they remain tied to an outdated mode of production. The more clearly the facts fly in the face of political economist's theories, the more nervous zeal and unctuousness he brings to applying to this ready-made world of capital notions of law and property that have been handed down from a precapitalist world. Things are different in the colonies, where the capitalist mode of production and appropriation always runs up against the obstacle of self-earned property, of the producer who owns what he needs to perform his labour and works to gain wealth for himself, not to create it for a capitalist. The contradiction between these diametrically opposed modes of production and appropriation plays out on a practical level in this case.
Some clear differences, but as I haven't gotten far in the new translation, I've not really thought through whether the differences changes the overall argument, adds clarity or what. Superficially, I'd say the new translation is more readable. If you like, I could check it against the German edition too to see which translation is closer.
adri: The Moore-Aveling translation was never so "faulty" that a new translation was ever needed in the first place; many people still use and cite the [1887 English edition].
Engels: While, thus, each of the translators is responsible for his share of the work [1887 English edition] only, I bear a joint responsibility for the whole.
Compare and contrast:
Political economy confuses on principle two very different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy, the process of primitive accumulation is more or less accomplished. Here the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed, it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology. It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them.
1887
Political economy as a matter of principle, tries to perpetuate the convenient tendency to confuse two kinds of private property. One is property based on a person's own labour; the other is capitalist property, diametrically opposed to the first kind, and in fact produced by its destruction. The process of original accumulation is more or less complete in Western Europe, the homeland of political economy. Here, either the capitalist mode of production has taken control of the whole nation's production directly, or, if conditions haven't advanced as far, it at least indirectly controls the social strata of people who exist alongside it in a state of decay because they remain tied to an outdated mode of production. The more clearly the facts fly in the face of political economist's theories, the more nervous zeal and unctuousness he brings to applying to this ready-made world of capital notions of law and property that have been handed down from a precapitalist world. Things are different in the colonies, where the capitalist mode of production and appropriation always runs up against the obstacle of self-earned property, of the producer who owns what he needs to perform his labour and works to gain wealth for himself, not to create it for a capitalist. The contradiction between these diametrically opposed modes of production and appropriation plays out on a practical level in this case.
2024
The latter translation is awkward, atrocious, almost unreadable. The former is wonderful prose reflecting the work of a wonderful prose writer (and genius comic, by the way).
The following mistranslation plainly alters the meaning to make it non-sensical:
One is property based on a person's own labour ["private property, of which one rests on the producers’ own labour"]
Adopting "original accumulation" in place of primitive ("first") accumulation is unhelpful in illuminating that primitive accumulation is the beginning of a process of accumulation.
Greater unction, or more unctionness, the reader can make their choice.
Which of these sentences below is true to the Deutsch will be left to someone whose knowledge of that tongue is not just a faint memory of conversations between refujews. The first certainly rings true:
The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them.
The contradiction between these diametrically opposed modes of production and appropriation plays out on a practical level in this case.
One thing is rest assured,
...copies are read and re-read by the mass of more or less educated people in our country; serious men are studying it.
The same will not be said of this Princeton edition.
Khawaga, thank you for transcribing that by hand. I know it was by hand because it has the clear mark of personal effort, i.e. typos, now corrected.
Perhaps there are improvements to be made to the Moore/Aveling translation—I don't like their habit of capitalising nouns arbitrarily, such as Communism, the Political Economy—but not at the sacrifice of losing fluidity and beauty of prose, and of conveying the meaning of the text.
If it's of any interest, Heinrich provides quite a bit of commentary on the Fowkes translation in his recent How To Read Marx's Capital, seeing as how his commentary and explanations are primarily based on the Fowkes translation (though he also cites other versions of Capital as well). Heinrich, for example, draws attention to how Fowkes does not really distinguish between "appear" (erscheinen) and "seem" (scheinen) when translating Marx's discussion of exchange-value in Chapter 1:
Fowkes translated: Exchange-value appears [erscheint] first of all as the quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-values of one kind exchange for use-values of another kind. This relation changes constantly with time and place. Hence exchange-value appears [scheint] to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e. an exchange-value that is inseparably connected with the commodity, inherent in it, seems a contradiction in terms. (126)
Heinrich wrote: Here, we must pay exact attention to the wording. Whereas in the first sentence Marx uses the verb erscheinen (appears), in the third sentence he uses scheinen (seems). ‘Exchange-value appears first of all…’ means that this is only a first appreciation of exchange-value; the topic of exchange-value is thus not yet settled. What do we see at first glance? The exchange-value of a commodity is precisely what one receives for it in exchange. If a quarter of wheat exchanges for x boot-polish, then x boot-polish is the exchange-value of a quarter of wheat. (55)
Heinrich wrote: When Marx says that exchange-value “seems” (scheint) to be accidental and arbitrary, he is not talking about something we simply see at first glance. Instead he is referring to an apparent or obvious conclusion—which could, however, also be wrong. By using the verb scheinen, Marx distances himself from the conclusion.
In the next paragraph, Marx tries to make clear that this apparent conclusion is in fact wrong. (55)
The distinction is relevant since, as Heinrich notes, "seem" usually suggests more doubt or the possibility of deception that "appear" does not really convey in both English and German. In the above passage, Marx is talking about how exchange-value seems (Fowkes translates it as "appears") to be purely accidental, when Marx actually argues a little bit further on that the different ratios at which commodities exchange for (e.g. x boot polish for y silk; Marx hasn't introduced and isn't even talking about money yet) are not at all arbitrary, but are instead influenced by a commodity's value as measured in socially necessary labor time. Exchange-value itself is also, as Marx argues, nothing but the form of appearance of a commodity's value.
I think Fowkes using the verb "seem" would have certainly helped in that particular passage (in order to better express that Marx does in fact disagree with such a conclusion), but it becomes clearer at any rate what Marx's actual point is in the following paragraphs. It's not some "fatal translation flaw" that makes Marx's overall argument, which is really what's important I'd argue, indecipherable; you can still understand what Marx means as you continue reading.
For what it's worth, Reitter actually properly distinguishes between "appear" (erscheinen) and "seem" (scheinen) in his translation of the above paragraph:
Reitter translated: Exchange-value first appears [erscheint] as a quantitative relation, the ratio in which one type of use-value is exchanged for another. This relation changes constantly, varying with time and place. Exchange-value thus seems [scheint] to be something accidental and purely relative, and the idea of exchange-value as something inherent in (valeur intrinsèque) or immanent to a commodity seems to be a contradictio in adjecto. (14-15)
Adopting "original accumulation" in place of primitive ("first") accumulation is unhelpful in illuminating that primitive accumulation is the beginning of a process of accumulation.
This is actually wrong. In the original German, Marx uses the term "ursprüngliche Accumulation." The English translation of the word "ursprüngliche" is "original", but it doesn't really capture the meaning of the German. A better word would actually be "primordial," since the prefix "ur" in Germanic languages really refer to almost the beginning of time, prehistoric, primordial ooze times. In other words, primitive is actually a horrible translation due to the connotations of the word, and doesn't really capture that ursprüngliche Accumulation" is the original sin (so to speak) of capital.
Khawaga, thank you for transcribing that by hand. I know it was by hand because it has the clear mark of personal effort, i.e. typos, now corrected.
You're welcome and correct. I happened to have the book right next to me when I checked this thread, so no big deal.
adri
I think Fowkes using the verb "seem" would have certainly helped in that particular passage (in order to better express that Marx does in fact disagree with such a conclusion), but it becomes clearer at any rate what Marx's actual point is in the following paragraphs. It's not some "fatal translation flaw" that makes Marx's overall argument, which is really what's important I'd argue, indecipherable; you can still understand what Marx means as you continue reading.
This is precisely the sort of small changes that I think adds clarity to Marx's arguments. To confuse appear and seem is a grave translation error, since the former is the base of Marx's social ontology, while the latter has nothing to do with how things must appear as commodities, money, or capital in the capitalist MoP. There are a few other things like this too in the new translation.
The schein vs. erscheint also reminds me of the grave translation error in Grundrisse, where Nicolaus translates both "verwertung" (valorization [of value]) and verwirklichung (realization [of value]) as valorization.
In other words, primitive is actually a horrible translation due to the connotations of the word, and doesn't really capture that ursprüngliche Accumulation" is the original sin (so to speak) of capital.
The horror does not arise from the word itself but from the mercenary vindicators that apply it ideologically.
The word 'primitive' of course is Protean in its meaning. Its basic sense is 'primary in time', and by extension undeveloped, simple, crude, unsophisticated.
Primitive accumulation is all of these things and is utterly the appropriate word, leading as it does directly to the sophisticated, "secondary", forms of accumulation recently witnessed in Raza.
Primeval would suffice, but not at this late juncture in Time. Primordial, not so, unless one accepts the Pauline doctrine as gospel.
To get our heads round this important concept, ursprüngliche, it might be helpful to draw up a timeline. Approximately 4.5 million years ago, birth of our species-being; approximately 12,000 years ago, advent of classical ("belonging to the highest class") society, of ursprüngliche Akkumulation.
Sure, primeval works, but try as hard as you might, English has no word for ursprüngeliche. If Marx wanted to refer to it as primitive, he could have used the German word "primitiv".
Sure, German is a rich language in conveying philosophical concepts, as English is rich in conveying economic (commonweal), French, political concepts (contrast la manifestation with the English equivalent).
However, ursprüngliche Akkumulation is commonly known to English speakers as "primitive accumulation", and that is how the English working class knows the process of expropriation of its common land.
There is no purpose in altering the English expression now, aside from mystifying, and adding value to the publisher's investment, which is one and the same thing.
Sure, but you're assuming there is some great tradition in the working class reading Capital, that people throw around "primitive accumulation" like some colloquialism. They're not.
It is a good thing that the writing is on the walls,
Else where else would we get our wisdom from?
We can find more nuggets of inadvertent humour in the pages of this now discounted Princeton edition, if we look closely between the lines:
Commodities come into the world in the shape of use-values, such as paper, card and ink. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. By the acrobatics of the merchant, these same commodities can be transformed into the commodity fetish.
A note to readers:
This primitive accumulation plays approximately the same role in political economy as original sin does in theology.
Marx does not know his theology. Original sin is a religious doctrine first conceived by Saul/Paulus, persecutor of the nascent communist movement of the Way. His doctrine curses humankind to be declared sinful from birth, according to the Pharisee in his letter to the Romans:
Well then; it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race [not one particular class of society, as taught by messiah] because everyone has sinned.
The doctrine was further developed by Irenaeus of Lyon, in reaction to followers of the Way, who asserted that no intermediary was to come between the poor and Creation, and finally named as "original sin" by Augustine of Hippo. The doctrine was institutionalised by the Councils of Carthage (411–418 AD) and of Orange (529 AD).
The Biblical passage that does mark humanity's condemnation to accumulative forms of agriculture is the aptly called Fall, the tempting of Life by the allure of the serpent and the subsequent division of labour between the pastoral and the arable. This is the true point of departure from primitive communism by means of primitive accumulation, the movement out of Africa/Ethiopia (Eden) into the Asiatic mode of production in the Land of Nod.
This is not an approximation of the role of primitive accumulation in the political economy, it is a literal retelling of that process, just as the following passage in the letter of "James" to the twelve tribes of the dispersion is a description of Marx's conception of surplus value in a primitive form:
Your wealth is rotting, your clothes are all moth-eaten. All your gold and your silver are corroding away, and the same corrosion will be a witness against you and eat into your body. It is like a fire which you have stored up for the final days. Can you hear crying out against you the wages which you kept back from the labourers mowing your fields?
Any German speakers, I'd be…
Any German speakers, I'd be interested to see how it compares to Hans G Ehrbar's translation:
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.pdf
Yes interestingly this is…
Yes interestingly this is being billed as the first translation which wasn't done by socialists. Would be curious to see how it differs from previous versions, and what people familiar with previous versions think about it
The translation into…
The translation into colloquial American English reads ok but the 15-page Foreword and a 30-page Editor’s Introduction are both unhelpful and undermine the rest of the book. The Preface is mainly gibberish by someone who dismisses as ‘fantasy’ what she calls ‘a perfectly rational, controlled and transparent communist political economy on the far side of a capitalist epoch’; according to her, Capital is a work of philosophy, a ‘deep ontological and epistemological critique of capitalism’. The Editor, too, sees Marx as basically a philosopher and opines that in Capital ‘nowhere really does Marx condemn the capital system or call for revolution’. But, then, both of them are philosophers who only want to interpret the world.
It’s a nice looking book…
It’s a nice looking book though.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the…
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Wendy Brown preface. Here's the full quote that alb mentioned:
Doesn't it sort of make the reader not want to bother with the book if you describe as "fantasy" something Marx, who was a communist after all, and millions of other workers strove for? A socialist/communist society, which is implied throughout the pages of Vol. 1, is also the overcoming of all of capitalism's socially and environmentally destructive effects. Marx highlighted these consequences of capitalism throughout his work, which Brown echoes in her preface. If a society in which people directly relate with one another in order to meet their needs without the mediation of markets or exchange is just a "fantasy," then it's not clear what Brown thinks people should actually do. Similarly, Marx also never argued that a socialist/communist society would be "perfectly rational"—that would be an impossible dystopia—so it's unclear who or what Brown is critiquing there.
In any case, it's also worth mentioning that there is plenty to critique in Ernest Mandel's introduction to Fowkes' translation, in addition to the editorial/introductory content in the Marx-Engels Collected Works, which uses the Moore-Aveling translation in Vol. 35. In other words, I wouldn't dismiss Paul Reitter's (American-English) translation on the basis of a preface or the editorial content. It seems like a nice contribution, filled with explanatory notes about how certain passages were translated. I don't think Reitter's translation renders the previous translations obsolete though, and neither does Reitter himself:
The Moore-Aveling translation was never so "faulty" that a new translation was ever needed in the first place; many people still use and cite the MECW. One just has to bear in mind the criticisms that have been made against it, and the same applies to Fowkes' translation. There will always be people criticizing any translation, which they should. If you want Marx in his own words, then you have to read the German original. I'm also fairly certain that people will criticize Reitter's translation as well.
The end of Chapter 32 is the…
The end of Chapter 32 is the point. Everything leads logically to expropriation of the expropriators.
Steven. wrote: Yes…
Reitter says he’s a Marxist but not a Leninist for what it’s worth, in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG0rQi6JwkU
Fantasy is probably a nicer way of putting it unless something extraordinary is down the pike.
The new translation is…
The new translation is pretty decent. It is certainly more readable in places and have definitively improved certain sections that were so horribly translated that unless you could consult the original German, you'd get the wrong idea about what Marx's was trying to say.
But as adri's comment suggests, it's not a perfect translation. There are other sections where the Fowkes translation is superior. Ritter's translation seems to focus on readability and capturing the essence of Marx's argument rather than being a 'true' translation (as in, some words may be left out, but the overall meaning is not lost).
While I am reading, I also have a copy of Fowkes and a German version to consult when a passage is a bit strange.
For those of us not in…
For those of us not in possession perhaps someone could transcribe the opening of Chapter 33 so that we can compare?
Westartfromhere, I was…
Westartfromhere, I was looking for chapter 33 in the new translation and only now realized that there is a change in the chapter breakdown. Chapter 33 is now chapter 25.
Anyway, here is the passage you asked to compare:
Some clear differences, but as I haven't gotten far in the new translation, I've not really thought through whether the differences changes the overall argument, adds clarity or what. Superficially, I'd say the new translation is more readable. If you like, I could check it against the German edition too to see which translation is closer.
Very interesting insight,…
Very interesting insight, Khawaga, thanks.
Thanks Khawaga! The latter…
Compare and contrast:
1887
2024
The latter translation is awkward, atrocious, almost unreadable. The former is wonderful prose reflecting the work of a wonderful prose writer (and genius comic, by the way).
The following mistranslation plainly alters the meaning to make it non-sensical:
Adopting "original accumulation" in place of primitive ("first") accumulation is unhelpful in illuminating that primitive accumulation is the beginning of a process of accumulation.
Greater unction, or more unctionness, the reader can make their choice.
Which of these sentences below is true to the Deutsch will be left to someone whose knowledge of that tongue is not just a faint memory of conversations between refujews. The first certainly rings true:
One thing is rest assured,
The same will not be said of this Princeton edition.
Khawaga, thank you for transcribing that by hand. I know it was by hand because it has the clear mark of personal effort, i.e. typos, now corrected.
Perhaps there are improvements to be made to the Moore/Aveling translation—I don't like their habit of capitalising nouns arbitrarily, such as Communism, the Political Economy—but not at the sacrifice of losing fluidity and beauty of prose, and of conveying the meaning of the text.
If it's of any interest,…
If it's of any interest, Heinrich provides quite a bit of commentary on the Fowkes translation in his recent How To Read Marx's Capital, seeing as how his commentary and explanations are primarily based on the Fowkes translation (though he also cites other versions of Capital as well). Heinrich, for example, draws attention to how Fowkes does not really distinguish between "appear" (erscheinen) and "seem" (scheinen) when translating Marx's discussion of exchange-value in Chapter 1:
The distinction is relevant since, as Heinrich notes, "seem" usually suggests more doubt or the possibility of deception that "appear" does not really convey in both English and German. In the above passage, Marx is talking about how exchange-value seems (Fowkes translates it as "appears") to be purely accidental, when Marx actually argues a little bit further on that the different ratios at which commodities exchange for (e.g. x boot polish for y silk; Marx hasn't introduced and isn't even talking about money yet) are not at all arbitrary, but are instead influenced by a commodity's value as measured in socially necessary labor time. Exchange-value itself is also, as Marx argues, nothing but the form of appearance of a commodity's value.
I think Fowkes using the verb "seem" would have certainly helped in that particular passage (in order to better express that Marx does in fact disagree with such a conclusion), but it becomes clearer at any rate what Marx's actual point is in the following paragraphs. It's not some "fatal translation flaw" that makes Marx's overall argument, which is really what's important I'd argue, indecipherable; you can still understand what Marx means as you continue reading.
For what it's worth, Reitter actually properly distinguishes between "appear" (erscheinen) and "seem" (scheinen) in his translation of the above paragraph:
westartfromhere Adopting …
westartfromhere
This is actually wrong. In the original German, Marx uses the term "ursprüngliche Accumulation." The English translation of the word "ursprüngliche" is "original", but it doesn't really capture the meaning of the German. A better word would actually be "primordial," since the prefix "ur" in Germanic languages really refer to almost the beginning of time, prehistoric, primordial ooze times. In other words, primitive is actually a horrible translation due to the connotations of the word, and doesn't really capture that ursprüngliche Accumulation" is the original sin (so to speak) of capital.
You're welcome and correct. I happened to have the book right next to me when I checked this thread, so no big deal.
adri
This is precisely the sort of small changes that I think adds clarity to Marx's arguments. To confuse appear and seem is a grave translation error, since the former is the base of Marx's social ontology, while the latter has nothing to do with how things must appear as commodities, money, or capital in the capitalist MoP. There are a few other things like this too in the new translation.
The schein vs. erscheint also reminds me of the grave translation error in Grundrisse, where Nicolaus translates both "verwertung" (valorization [of value]) and verwirklichung (realization [of value]) as valorization.
In other words, primitive is…
The horror does not arise from the word itself but from the mercenary vindicators that apply it ideologically.
Primitive accumulation is all of these things and is utterly the appropriate word, leading as it does directly to the sophisticated, "secondary", forms of accumulation recently witnessed in Raza.
Primeval would suffice, but not at this late juncture in Time. Primordial, not so, unless one accepts the Pauline doctrine as gospel.
To get our heads round this important concept, ursprüngliche, it might be helpful to draw up a timeline. Approximately 4.5 million years ago, birth of our species-being; approximately 12,000 years ago, advent of classical ("belonging to the highest class") society, of ursprüngliche Akkumulation.
Sure, primeval works, but…
Sure, primeval works, but try as hard as you might, English has no word for ursprüngeliche. If Marx wanted to refer to it as primitive, he could have used the German word "primitiv".
Sure, German is a rich…
Sure, German is a rich language in conveying philosophical concepts, as English is rich in conveying economic (commonweal), French, political concepts (contrast la manifestation with the English equivalent).
However, ursprüngliche Akkumulation is commonly known to English speakers as "primitive accumulation", and that is how the English working class knows the process of expropriation of its common land.
There is no purpose in altering the English expression now, aside from mystifying, and adding value to the publisher's investment, which is one and the same thing.
Sure, but you're assuming…
Sure, but you're assuming there is some great tradition in the working class reading Capital, that people throw around "primitive accumulation" like some colloquialism. They're not.
And you're assuming we don't…
And you're assuming there isn't?!?
Vera, to Charles
Great, they did it in the…
Great, they did it in the past. Good for you.
It is a good thing the…
It is a good thing that the writing is on the walls,
Else where else would we get our wisdom from?
We can find more nuggets of inadvertent humour in the pages of this now discounted Princeton edition, if we look closely between the lines:
Commodities come into the world in the shape of use-values, such as paper, card and ink. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. By the acrobatics of the merchant, these same commodities can be transformed into the commodity fetish.
A note to readers:
Marx does not know his theology. Original sin is a religious doctrine first conceived by Saul/Paulus, persecutor of the nascent communist movement of the Way. His doctrine curses humankind to be declared sinful from birth, according to the Pharisee in his letter to the Romans:
The doctrine was further developed by Irenaeus of Lyon, in reaction to followers of the Way, who asserted that no intermediary was to come between the poor and Creation, and finally named as "original sin" by Augustine of Hippo. The doctrine was institutionalised by the Councils of Carthage (411–418 AD) and of Orange (529 AD).
The Biblical passage that does mark humanity's condemnation to accumulative forms of agriculture is the aptly called Fall, the tempting of Life by the allure of the serpent and the subsequent division of labour between the pastoral and the arable. This is the true point of departure from primitive communism by means of primitive accumulation, the movement out of Africa/Ethiopia (Eden) into the Asiatic mode of production in the Land of Nod.
This is not an approximation of the role of primitive accumulation in the political economy, it is a literal retelling of that process, just as the following passage in the letter of "James" to the twelve tribes of the dispersion is a description of Marx's conception of surplus value in a primitive form: