ZT: On the Problem of a Mistranslation in the Chinese Edition of Capital Regarding the Labor Theory of Value (Note: reposted by Chan)

The translation errors in the current Chinese edition of Capital are numerous and have long been discussed in academic circles. This is merely the tip of the iceberg!

===============================================================

"Concrete labor creates use value; abstract labor creates value; the magnitude of value is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce the product." This passage is reportedly cited from Cihai (the Chinese encyclopedic dictionary), which is based on the CPC Central Committee's translation of Capital. The corresponding translation we found reads:

'All labor is, on the one hand, an expenditure of human labor-power in the physiological sense; as identical or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value. All labor is, on the other hand, an expenditure of human labor-power in a particular purposeful form; as concrete useful labor, it produces use values.' (Note 2)

From the above translation, which contains only two sentences, it is clear that the Chinese translation of Capital is indeed poorly done and easily produces ambiguity. The first sentence can be broken into two: "All labor is an expenditure of human labor-power in the physiological sense" and "as identical or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value." The second sentence can likewise be broken into: "All labor is an expenditure of human labor-power in a particular purposeful form" and "as concrete useful labor, it produces use values." If you truncate the beginning and end of the whole passage, it can be simplified to: "As identical or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value; as concrete useful labor, it produces use values." As for how this evolved into Cihai's "Concrete labor creates use value; abstract labor creates value" -- this grossly distorted "two kinds of labor" theory -- there must be a rather complex evolutionary history. We'll leave that for another essay on the distortion of the labor theory of value. This essay addresses the mistranslation problem first.

Marx's original German text reads:

'Alle Arbeit ist einerseits Verausgabung menschlicher Arbeitskraft im physiologischen Sinn, und in dieser Eigenschaft gleicher menschlicher oder abstrackt menschlicherArbeit bidet sie den Warenwert. Alle Arbeit ist andrerseits Verausgabung menschlicher Arbeitskraft in besondrer sweckbestimmter Form, und in dieser Eigenschaft konkreter nuetzlicher Arbei produziert sie Gebrauchswerte.' (Note 3)

The original contains "and... in this attribute" (und in dieser Eigenschaft), which the Chinese translation omitted in both places. This clause in the original is extremely important. Without it, the two sentences become unclear. On one hand, it connects "the expenditure of human labor-power in the physiological sense" with "identical or abstract human labor." On the other hand, it connects "the expenditure of human labor-power in a particular purposeful form" with "concrete useful labor." This makes it clear that all labor is one expenditure of human labor-power. Dividing all labor into two kinds -- concrete labor and abstract labor -- is wrong. In human history, human labor products can be useful without being commodities. Only under the social form of commodity production do labor products manifest a dual character: use value and value. Only then does labor manifest as self-contradictory -- concrete labor and abstract labor -- and only then does this characteristic form of a specific historical nature appear.

I checked two English translations and found neither has this mistranslation problem.

Based on the translation by Marx's two sons-in-law:

'On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expenditure of human labour-power in a special form and with a definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, it produces use-values.' (Note 4)

Based on Ben Fowkes' English translation:

'On the one hand, all labour is an expenditure of human labour-power, in physiological sense, and it is in this quality of being equal, or abstract, human labour that it forms the value of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is an expenditure of human labour-power in particular form and with a defite aim, and it is in this quality of being concrete useful labour that it produce use-values.' (Note 5)

I attempt to retranslate this passage as:

'On one hand, all labor, in the physiological sense, is an expenditure of human labor-power; and (und), in this attribute (in dieser Eigenschaft) of being identical or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value. On the other hand, all labor is an expenditure of human labor-power in a particular purposeful form; and, in this attribute of being concrete, useful labor, it produces use values.'

It must be pointed out that in my translation above, all labor is the expenditure of human labor-power, and only one kind of labor exists in the commodity -- not two different kinds. However, depending on whether we view the commodity's use value as its product, or view this commodity's value as its purely objective expression, the same labor stands in opposition to itself within the commodity: in its attribute of being identical or abstract human labor, this labor "forms" commodity value; in its attribute of being concrete useful labor, its product is use value or use-object.

We began by citing Cihai's "Concrete labor creates use value; abstract labor creates value," where both use "creates" -- this is wrong. In the capitalist commodity production process, the value advanced by capital includes the value of means of production C and the value of labor-power V. The commodity produced contains, besides C and V, an additional portion of surplus value M. Commodity value refers to the result formed by these three value components, where the value of means of production is transferred at equivalent value to the commodity, while the value of the worker's labor-power and the surplus value portion are what is created. -- Where is there so much "creating"?

Strictly speaking, in the first chapter of Capital, the category of labor-power has not yet logically been developed. Marx was obviously aware that using "human labor-power" would cause misunderstanding. Therefore, in the French edition of Capital, Marx consistently changed it to "human force." (Note 6) Accordingly, my translation above should be revised following this intention: 'On one hand, all labor, in the physiological sense, is an expenditure of human force; and, in this attribute of being identical or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value. On the other hand, all labor is an expenditure of human force in a particular productive form and with a definite aim; and, in this attribute of being concrete, useful labor, it produces use values.' Unfortunately, the Chinese translation of the French edition did not adhere to its stated translation principles, and following the current standard Chinese translation of the fourth German edition, mistranslated this passage in the same way.