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.
As part of the Management session of the XX April International Conference, Carl F. Fey from Aalto University School of Business, Finland, presented his paper on Facilitating Innovation in Companies in Russia: The Role of Organizational Culture. In his talk, Professor Fey spoke about the results of three studies he has been conducting with his team.
How does digital technology affect the behavior and health of schoolchildren? What opportunities does it proved teachers and school administrators? These and other issues were discussed by participants in the plenary session ‘Children’s Wellbeing in the Digital Age’ at the XX April International Scientific Conference of HSE.
Implementing a digital analytical platform, opportunities for Big Data, and other prospects for the development of Russian statistics were discussed by participants at a plenary session of the XX April International Academic Conference.
Dr. Dorothy Espelage (University of Florida) presented a comprehensive account of her research into youth bullying spanning more than two decades in an invited paper ‘Prevention & Intervention of Youth Bullying and other Forms of Youth Aggression: Research Informed Strategies’ at the XX April International Academic Conference.
The role of regional and industrial institutions of higher education in achieving national development goals must increase, and leading universities will help them. This was the conclusion reached by participants of the plenary session on Russian higher education that took place as part of the XX April International Academic Conference.
The plenary session ‘Strategy of Russian Presence at Global Food Markets’ took place as part of HSE University’s XX April International Academic Conference, where participants discussed the prospects for Russian agricultural exports to Asia, as well as the use of nonconventional investment models, such as Islamic financial tools.
National objectives for social development, as well as existing risks and opportunities in implementing these objectives were discussed by participants of HSE International April Conference.
The social mobility system created under President Vladimir Putin’s initiative begins with a search for talented children and ends with training and selection of the best top executives. On April 10, the participants of a plenary session on ‘The New System of Social Mobility in Russia as a Way to Renew the Elite’ at theXX April International Academic Conference discussed the details of this system, as well as its future outlook.
The first plenary session of the HSE XX April International Academic Conference continued with a discussion on the sources of economic growth, budgetary policy priorities, as well as investment in infrastructure and human capital. Experts from HSE joined other participants to speak on these issues.
‘We Need Solutions That Will Allow Russian Business not to Look to Offshore Companies, but to Gain Profitability in Russia’
HSE’s XX April International Conference opened with a plenary session devoted to Russian economic development and fiscal policy. Mr. Anton Siluanov, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, discussed the solutions proposed by the Russian government to stimulate economic growth and business development.