Marx’s Capital Was a Work in Progress
The notion that Karl Marx's works have been studied inside and out is fundamentally incorrect. The huge body of his manuscripts has still not been completely processed, and his seminal work, Capital, was only recently published with the final edits of the author. The 19th April Conference at the Higher School of Economics included the section ‘Methodology of Economic Science’ which was devoted to the work of the German philosopher and political scientist. Independent researcher and professor from Berlin, Thomas Kuczynski, gave a presentation at the conference which pointed out numerous aspects of Marx’s continuous rethinking of allegedly fixed truths.
Professor Kuczynski recently published the first volume of Marx's Capital in German. According to Professor Vladimir Avtonomov from HSE’s Faculty of Economics, this work is completely novel in that it is based on the first French edition published in the 19th century. He explains, ‘Thomas Kuczynski has included amendments which were personally made by Marx to the French edition of the first volume of Capital.’
Professor Avtonomov introduced the presentation at the 19th April Conference and described the enormity of the task that Professor Kuczynski recently successfully completed. ‘Marx left behind a huge amount of written heritage and archivists and historians are still struggling to cope with the full volume of his manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are incredibly valuable because they give us an idea of Marx’s creative processes, of how his thoughts developed.’
A Series of Editions
The first edition of Capital (Volume I) (1867) was followed by a second, revised, German edition (1872-3) and a French edition (1872-5). The French edition was not a simple translation of the German but rather a strongly improved version thereof. Marx instructed potential translators to base their translations on a careful comparison of the two editions.
After the French edition, Marx planned to publish a further revised German edition in 1881. His death prevented him carrying out this plan, but it shows that he considered his opus magnum to be a work in progress. According to Professor Kuczynski, ‘it would be wrong to assume that Marx’s political activities prevented the completion of his scientific work. However, there is no doubt that he was constantly torn between current political tasks and long-term planned scientific projects. There were always two souls dwelling inside him.’
The French Edition
The French edition, which Marx translated together with Joseph Roy, contained certain significant improvements on the German one. However, Marx was unable to transfer the entire philosophic content of the original German edition into the French edition, as he had problems translating terminology that he had developed in his mother tongue into other languages. These difficulties endure today, as is becoming apparent in the constant debates on appropriate translations and representations in other languages.
Whatever the literary defects of the French edition may be, according to Professor Kuczynski, it possesses scientific value and should be consulted by readers. Today, nobody can judge the quality of Roy’s translation. Nevertheless, his translation was an alien text for Marx.
However, in the post-phase to the second edition, written in April 1875, his opinion of the French text had already changed a little. It showed him the weaknesses of his original German edition much more clearly than his own re-reading of the text would have done. Indeed, it was the French translation that prompted Marx’s profound editing for the later revisions which contained more than simply clarifications. He said, ‘having undertaken the work of revision, I was led to apply it to the second German edition to simplify some arguments and to add critical suggestions’.
Marx’s appreciation of the French edition meant that he had no objections to using it as a basis for an Italian translation. In November 1878, the Russian translator, Nikolai Danielson, asked whether he would be inclined to make some changes to the French and the second German edition. Marx answered that in the second Russian edition of Capital, ‘the second German edition should be carefully compared with the French one and only a few alterations are necessary.’
Marx did feel, however, that it would have been easier to do the translation by himself. Of his work with Roy, Marx said, ‘the French edition consumed so much of my time that I will never collaborate on a translation again’.
Collaboration with Engels
As we know, the second and third volumes of Capital were not produced by Marx, but Friedrich Engels, using Marx’s manuscripts.A criticism by Engels of the first German edition was that, ‘one is forever plunging straight from the illustration of one point into the exposition of another point’.
Marx, based on this feedback from Engels on the first German edition, decided to change the structure of the text. When writing the second German edition, he divided and subdivided the text into chapters and sub-chapters. The French edition was further sub-divided and contained 8 parts and 33 pages. Engels used the French sub-division for his English translation, however not for the German editions he produced. Consequently, we have today two different internationally featured issues of Capital (Vol. 1).
The debates about the relations of the editions written by Marx himself and those written by Engels represent two different opinions. The first view recognises a steady improvement and considers Engels’ fourth edition to be the true edition. The other opinion developed in the 1960s recognizes a ‘watering down’ of the true intention of the book.
An Unfinished Masterpiece?
In 1881, Marx was informed by his German editor that a third edition was necessary. By this stage, his wife had passed away and he himself had suffered bronchitis. However, he agreed to have it ready with only a minimum number of changes to the text. He also stipulated that only 1000 be printed, instead of 3000, as they had originally agreed. Marx had therefore already begun with the planned revision, however his bad health prevented him from completing this revision in its entirety.
Therefore, Capital does not exist in a version that corresponds to the author’s final planned corrections and revisions. Every speculation about its content will be misleading because, according to Professor Kuczynski, Marx always achieved very different results with his edits from those which were outlined in his preparatory works.
In Marx’s view, Capital was therefore an incomplete work, or, a work in progress.
The roundtable "Teaching Economics to High School Students: Curricula, Practices, Competitions" took place as part of the XXII April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. Danil Fedorovykh, Deputy Vice Rector of HSE University and the President of the Executive Board of the International Economics Olympiad (IEO), initiated the session. Alexander Zhitkovskiy, Head of the Project Laboratory for Development of Intellectual Competitions in Economics (Faculty of Economic Sciences, HSE University), was the co-moderator.
The Core of the Nesting Doll: What a Comparison of the April Conference, the World Economic Forum, and the Gaidar Forum Reveals
This year the April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development took place for the twenty-second time, and, for the first time, Sberbank joined HSE University as a co-organizer of the event. Research assistants of the Economic Journalism Laboratory, headed by Nikolay Vardul, analyzed the agenda of the April Conference and compared it with those of other major forums. The findings of the study can be found among the laboratory’s publications.
On April 30, the XXII April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development came to a close. This year it was organized jointly by HSE University and Sberbank, and the majority of the events were held online. HSE Vice President and Conference Programme Committee Deputy Chair Lev Yakobson spoke with HSE News Service about his initial takeaways from the event and its new format.
The XXII April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development is drawing to a close in Moscow. In an interview with the media partner of the event, NEWS.ru, HSE University Vice Rector Ivan Prostakov spoke about how the format of the conference was organized, how the pandemic impacted the event, and how scientists and experts from different countries regard Russia.
Cyber Performance, PROK Cinema, and Digital Art: The Development of Art and Art Research in the 21st Century
From April 21 to 23, 2021, a major online conference of the HSE Art and Design School and the Doctoral School of Art and Design was held on ‘Theories and Practices of Art and Design: Sociocultural, Economic and Political Contexts.’ Experts discussed educational practices in art, its contemporary state, the impact of technology, and prospects for the art industry’s future development.
To what extent do the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) benefit from an open economy? What financial, scientific, and educational policy tools will contribute to the implementation of the recently approved ‘Strategic Directions for the Development of Eurasian Economic integration until 2025’? These questions were discussed by participants in a series of expert discussions at the XXII April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development organised by HSE University and Sberbank.
In order to remain competitive in the labour market, university graduates must be proficient not only in professional knowledge and skills, but also in a set of universal competences (UC). However, higher education systems face problems in assessing such competences due to a lack of developed approaches and methodologies. A report released by the HSE Institute of Education, ‘An Assessment of Universal Competences as Higher Education Learning Outcomes’, analyses the ways in which these challenges have been addressed in both Russia and abroad.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a fundamental component of many activities in economics and finance in recent years. On April 26,Panos Pardalos, Academic Supervisor at theLaboratory of Algorithms and Technologies for Networks Analysis (LATNA at HSE Nizhny Novgorod) and Distinguished Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Florida, will talk about its impact, future developments and limitations in his honorary lecture Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Economics and Finance.
Though a native of South Korea, Daeun Han went to school in Moscow, so attending a Russian university and taking classes in Russian did not pose a big challenge for her. She is currently working towards a Bachelor's degree in economics at the Faculty of Economic Sciences at HSE University. As a third-year student, she finds herself getting more and more interested in different aspects of economics.
What is affect and why is it important for humans? How can feelings be defined and what is their relation to emotions and consciousness? What might be used in making a soft robot? Professor Antonio Damasio (University of Southern California, USA) discussed these and other questions in his honorary lecture, entitled 'Feeling, Knowing, and Artificial Intelligence'.The talk was delivered on April 16 at the at the XXII April International Academic Conference held by HSE University jointly with Sberbank.