Re: [OPE-L] detour/roundabout way (quotes)

[Michael Schauerte <mikeschauerte@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rakesh,

 

I sort of touched on that temporal question in the email I sent a moment ago (although I used the term "chronological") There is a passage in Theory of the Value Form & Theory of the Exchange Process, where Kuruma emphasizes how the two "moments" of the "detour" of value _expression_ occur simultaneously, so to speak: 

 

"Having said that a commodity only obtains the form of value through a detour, this does not mean that the detour involves passing through two processes that temporally follow each other. Rather, this is achieved at once, through a single process. For the linen to express its value in the form of a coat, it only has to posit the coat as equal to itself, and through this same action of equating, the linen makes the coat the value-body, thus simultaneously coming into a relation with this coat qua value-body. This is how the linen comes to express its own value in the form of a coat."

On 4/28/07, Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

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)
>