[OPE-L:5195] 'is' capital productive or is that how it 'appears' ?

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re the citation from the _Results ..._ that was
last noted in [5181].

Although Chris  Arthur's article in _Capital &
Class_  had a quotation (from  the Penguin 1976 edition of Volume 1 which
included a translation of "Results of the Immediate Process of
Production") which read:

"Thus capital [is] *productive* (p. 26),

in the source cited (the Penguin ed., p. 1056),
it was actually:

"Thus capital appears *productive*.

 This was not, a typo. In fact, in a footnote (#9, p.
 36), Chris explains:

     "Note the mistranslation: 'appears' should be
     'is' as in Marx, 1994a: 459 [_Collected
      Works_, Volume 34, JL]. (I concede
      other cases of 'appears' in this translation
      of *Results...* are genuine.) Marx first arrived
      at this formula in the 1861-63 manuscript;
      see Marx 1994a: 128; the whole section
      (121-29) is very instructive".

So, evidently there is a difference in translation
between the Penguin/Vintage edition and the
 _CW_, 34, translation.

Does anyone have the original German? If so,
do you think 'appears' or 'is' is the better
translation?

In solidarity, Jerry