Translations of Das Kapital

De los libros con que los reformadores sociales del siglo xix buscaron redimir a la clase obrera, solo El capital alcanzó el carácter de obra consagrada, e incluso sacralizada como «Biblia del proletariado».
Se trata de un libro complejo, a menudo más reconocido (y venerado) que leído. Leer El capital, traducirlo, editarlo, comprometía las más diversas estrategias. La historia de sus ediciones en lengua española es una verdadera saga transatlántica, atravesada por revoluciones, guerras, dictaduras y exilios. Y, no menos importante, por querellas sobre tales o cuales conceptos que nunca fueron meramente «técnicas», sino que trasuntaban concepciones enfrentadas de cómo entender la lucha política y la emancipación humana.

The reception of Marx’s Capital in Bulgaria is a particularly complicated subject of research for two reasons: 1) One needs to define very succinctly what exactly was “Soviet Marxism” in Bulgaria alone, and to what extent was Bulgarian Marxism different from Soviet Marxism? 2) One needs to constantly patrol the border between publishing history and party lines - in our case, the rule of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP). In this article I attempt to address both issues by looking at the publishing history and dissemination of Capital in Bulgaria and some examples of scientific contradictions under the practices of officially sanctioned Marxism and scientific communism in communist Bulgaria. I claim that, in order to understand the relaxed irrelevance of the critique of political economy in Bulgaria, one should rather speak of a “Soviet-Bulgarian synthesis” when discussing the “Marxism” being practiced by the scientific-technical intelligentsia under the Bulgarian satellite-style rule. In what follows I will a) try and explain in broad strokes some analytical peculiarities related to the dissemination of Capital in Bulgaria, and will b) try and justify the use of the term “Soviet-Bulgarian (Marxist) synthesis.”

The aim of this text is to analyse the origin of Volume I of "Das Kapital". I discuss the subsequent manuscripts of Marx’s project to critically present the social reality of capitalist societies. I’m trying to show, how Marx, while developing his method of a critique of political economy, worked also on the presentation of the effects of this critique, on the clarification of the scope of his research and how he changed the order
of the content of the entire project. Thence the article is not an analysis of the historical aspect of Marx’s work on "Das Kapital", but an attempt to present the main assumptions, goals and ideas of his critique of political economy. Moreover, the text discusses also the effects of the collective work on the new edition of Marx’s and Engel’s collected works
(MEGA2) and the importance of these eff ects for the contemporary studies on Marx’s thought.

Nagsimula ang Maikling Imbestigasyon ng Isang Mahabang Pangungulilas sa isang pagtatakang nanghahamon: pagpapasalita sa isang “basag na salamin sa mata.” Susunod rito ang pagbanggit sa Aleph, sa “teolohiya ng Isa at Karamihan,” sa “istruktura ng DNA” at bago matapos ang unang pahina, kay Minerva.

May isang manunulat na tinawag ang nobela bilang isang “pilosopikal” na akda. Nais ng papel na ibahin nang kaunti ang bansag na ito at ipanukalang ang nobela ay ‘di lang pilosopikal kundi intelektwal. Nakasalalay ang pag-iibang ito sa pag-asang mas madaling ihayag ang sosyalidad ng panghuli. Mula rito, susuriin ang sala-salabid na kaisipang ipinasok sa akda at susubukang gagapin kung paano sila nag-uugnay-ugnay. Sisipatin rin ang istilo at pamamaraan ng pagkukwento ng nobela—hindi banayad, tahimik na nangugusap, malay sa ginagawa—at kung ano ang ambag nito sa kaisipang binubuo ng akda. Dalawang bagay kaugnay sa sinasabi at ginagawa ng nobela ang sisipatin: (1) ang estado at konstruksyon ng kwento/naratibo (mula sa nobela: “sa pinanlansi na ‘Fiction does not lie,’ kahit na ang kabaligtarang lohika nito ay ‘Fiction lies precisely because fiction is a lie.’” Ang sugal ko: higit sa katotohanan, kailangang usisain ang punsyon ng piksyon (ang baybay ay para sa alliterative effect); ano ang mga relasyong binubuhay nito) at (2) ang bisa ng pagsulat, ang silbi ng citation at ang kawalang-isahan ng may-akda (sa nobela, “siya’y isinasapapel din,” babarilin pa nga; “ang location/coordinates of the speaking voice”). Ang panimulang ideya na susubukin sa papel: ang naratibo ay background lang; tinutuntungan lamang ito upang ibida ang pagmumuni tungkol sa sosyalidad ng kaisipan, pagkukwento at pagsulat.


(Edel Garcellano’s Maikling Imbestigasyon ng Isang Mahabang Pangungulila commences with a challenging conundrum: making a broken eyeglass speak. After this, the following are mentioned: Aleph, the teleology of the One and Many, DNA structure, and, before the first page ends, Minerva.

One Filipino wrier described this novel as “philosophical.” This paper aims to slightly alter this designation and propose that the novel is not just philosophical but also intellectual—with the sociality of this second term easier to evince. The multifarious ideas permeating the novel will be discussed and their potential connections will be established.  Analysis will also be given to the novels’ narrative style—creasy, covertly conversing, conscious of its own act—and how this contributes to the ideas being built in the work. Two points of concern will be on what the novel is saying and what it is doing: (1) the status and construction of the narrative (from the novel, “sa panlalansi na ‘Fiction does not lie,’ kahit na ang kabaligtarang lohika nito ay ‘Fiction lies precisely because fiction is a lie.’” My wager: what must be interrogated more than the truth-value is the function of fiction); and the relations that this narrative activates (2) the efficacy of writing, the purpose of citations and the multiplicity/complexity of the author (from the novel, “siya’y isinasapapel din,” he is also being written, gunned even; the “location/coordinates of the speaking voice”). The preliminary idea this paper will test: the narrative merely serves as backdrop to the reflections on the sociality and materiality of thinking, of storytelling, and of writing.)

Non tutte le seguenti osservazioni hanno la stessa importanza, ho cercato con una catalogazione approssimativa, mediante i colori del testo, di dare delle indicazioni (il colore verde in genere segnala le cose meno importanti, i refusi per esempio, che non impediscono una comprensione corretta del testo). Si tratta di appunti, anche se abbastanza lavorati. Si tratta solo di stimoli che trasmetto al curatore al fine di migliorare il testo come riterrà opportuno. Se revisionassi tutte le osservazioni che seguono, ne eliminerei alcune che a una più attenta analisi riterrei inadeguate. Le osservazioni più importanti le ho riportate, con delle modifiche, nel testo pubblicato a Dicembre 2018 su Materialismo Storico e dedicato alla traduzione MEOC 31.

Esitelmä 2012 Sosiologia päivien yhteiskuntateorian työryhmässä. Esityksessä kuvamateriaalia, jota ei myöhemmissä esitykseen pohjaavissa julkaisuissa:
- Silvonen, Jussi (2013) Edward Gylling ja Pääoman ensimmäiset suomennokset. Työväentutkimus. Vuosikirja 2013, 16-21
- Silvonen, Jussi (2013) Sata vuotta "Pääomaa" suomeksi. Tieteessä tapahtuu, 31 (5), 31-34.

Horacio Tarcus es ya una pluma distinguida entre quienes han contribuido a la historia de las izquierdas en la Argentina, en tanto que capítulo significativo del desarrollo de dicha corriente en el con-junto de América Latina. Su fama no es casual, es la expresión de un amplio recorrido como editor, archivista y escritor. Hace un tiempo ya que comienza a ofrecernos un conjunto de trabajos sobre los que ha venido reflexionando por décadas. El libro que reseñamos en esta ocasión bien podría ser considerado como un libro erudito y para eruditos, sin embargo, dada su temática, interpelará a una cantidad más amplia de lectores. Tarcus avanza sobre un ambicioso plan de recolectar las pistas que han dejado los numerosos traductores de la obra cumbre de Karl Marx: El Capital: crítica de la economía política. El famoso texto que ha cumplido ya 150 años de haber aparecido a la luz y cuyo destino, se pensó en el siglo xix, era convertirse en la "biblia del proletaria-do". El recorrido del texto ha tenido sinnúmero de vicisitudes, y es parte de la cultura política de la corriente ideológica más significati-va producida entre las clases subalternas, pero también motivo de reflexión para una gama amplia de intelectuales. Con un estilo ágil, amable y sencillo, Tarcus ofrece una exposi-ción detallada y minuciosa (según el material con el cual se cuenta para hacerlo) de las distintas trayectorias de quienes encararon el proyecto de convertirse en los traductores de Marx al español. No escapa ni la dimensión histórica-contextual, ni las múltiples vicisi-tudes de un lenguaje técnico que estaba inventándose y reinventán-dose. El conjunto es un trazo fino sobre las veredas tomadas por el texto al que Marx le dedicó más empeño para su producción.

Hippolyte Vanderrydt (1857 – 1929) : premier traducteur en langue française du livre II (1900) et III (1901-1902) du Capital de Karl Marx avec Julian Borchardt, corédacteur de la Charte de Quaregnon, collaborateur des journaux Le Peuple et L’Avenir social sous le pseudonyme de « LUX », militant socialiste (POB), enseignant à la Centrale d’éducation ouvrière et à l’École ouvrière supérieure (Belgique) -> la notice complète ici :  https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article228629

RESUMEN En este texto se exploran tres lecturas contemporáneas a la "crisis del marxismo" que se hicieron de El Capital en América Latina. En referencia directa a los intentos por renovar el discurso marxista tras la revolución cubana y las influencias, tanto de la "filosofía de la praxis", como del "althusserianismo", se contrastan las producciones que buscaron hacer frente a esa llamada crisis. Enfrentar dicha discusión supuso regresar a El Capital de Marx como un texto que sentaba las bases para producciones a la altura del tiempo histórico. Bajo estas coordenadas se ensaya un acercamiento a las producciones de Bolívar Echeverría, Franz Hinkelammert y Enrique Dussel; tanto en su momento de acercamiento y trabajo teórico sobre El Capital, como las evoluciones posteriores de sus investigaciones. ABSTRACT This text explores three contemporary readings of the "crisis of Marxism" that were made of Marx's Capital in Latin America direct reference to the attempts to renew the Marxist discourse after the Cuban revolution and the influences of both the "philosophy of praxis" and "Althusserianism", the productions that sought to face the "crisis of Marxism" were contrasted. Facing this discussion meant returning to Marx's Capital as a text that laid the basis for productions at

Kaç kişi Karl Marx'ı büyük yazarların ve sanatçıların bir listesine dahil etmeyi düşünürdü? Postmodern çağımızda bile Das Kapital'in parçalı anlatısı ve radikal kopuşu birçok potansiyel okur tarafından biçimsizlik ve anlaşılmazlık olarak yanlış anlaşılıyor. Benim kitabımın ana hedefi bu okurların en azından bir kısmını yeniden bakmaya ikna etmektir: Beethoven, Goya ya da Tolstoy ile uğraşmaya istekli olan herkes Das Kapital'in bir okumasından “yeni bir şey öğrenebilmelidir” – çünkü onun konusu hâlâ yaşamlarımıza hükmediyor. Marshall Berman'ın sorduğu gibi: Sermaye var olmaya devam ettikçe Das Kapital nasıl bitebilir ki? Katı olan her şey hâlâ buharlaşırken, Das Kapital'in hayatlarımızı yöneten güçlere –ve bunların ürettikleri istikrarsızlık, yabancılaşma ve sömürüye– ilişkin canlı portresi asla rezonansını veya dünyayı odağımıza koyma gücünü yitirmeyecektir.