ed hardy clothing Tho: Refuting “Yanhuang Spring and Autumn” “is abandoned on private property, not to eliminate the” culture
Refuting “Yanhuang Spring and Autumn” “is abandoned on private property, not to eliminate the” culture
– Comments on Li Tong, Hu Deping other views on this issue
Tho
I. Introduction
In China, since the reform and opening up has been on someone wants to take the opportunity to engage in privatization, but they encountered an obstacle that is insurmountable theory, this is the Marx and Engels “Communist Manifesto” where have unequivocally declared that ” theory of the Communists may be summed up his own words: elimination of private ownership. “(” Marx and Engels, Selected Works, “Volume 1, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 286) In order to carry out privatization in socialist China, so some people began to of their “Declaration”, that is the “crucial” process. As far as I know, this “crucial” in the first shot that hit Mr. Li Tong. His No. 9 in 2000, the “Bookstore” Magazine published “<Communist Manifesto> in an original interpretation and translation of the word Aufhebung Opinion” article. Probably not because theorists who see “Book House”, the article was published did not have much impact in theoretical circles. Only after two years, Professor Gao Fang in the “social scientific research” (bimonthly) No. 5 in 2002 published “of the” Communist Declaration “to a mistranslation to see how the transition to capitalism and socialism” the article introduced of Levin's point of view, This raises the importance of this issue. At the same time, Dong and other economists who are similar on different occasions hyped point of view, and Hu Deping, King Shall Live in the 2002's “internal parameters of Private Economy,” 48, 49 published in the “eradication of private ownership of Marxism on the other Solutions “article. For a time, on the “Communist Manifesto” translation is wrong, not “eliminate private ownership”, but “abandon private ownership,” the statement got around fast, loud and clear. In fact, Aufhebung in German Village is a multi-meaning words, the “pick up, pick up,” “abolish, repeal,” “remove, remove,” “retention,” and so the meaning, of course, some people in academia to translated as “abandoned” the. Since this is a multi-meaning words, how accurate the translation, should contact the specific language environment can decide. It should be said, under the “Declaration” will be translated into the specific context of the “eradication” is correct, nothing wrong there is no issue of translation and mistranslation; contrary translated as “abandoned” it will not correct a mistake. In response, Deputy Secretary for the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the original Comrade Gu Jinping in the “Economic News” No. 3 of 2003 published in “the” Communist Manifesto “that” elimination of private ownership “of the translation is correct,” the article was to clarify away at the end of re-edited publication of “Collected Works of Marx and Engels,” the second volume of the “Communist Manifesto” and the “elimination of private ownership” of the translation remains in the original translation did not move, it should be said that this is an already solved the problem. However, this year's “Spring and Autumn Yan Huang,” Phase IV has written published King Shall Live “is abandoned on private property, not to eliminate the” article, the article is that he and Hu Deping co-wrote in 2002, the article reiterated again, neither Gu clarification on the challenge, nor on his past articles to supplement, nothing new at all, had not worth writing with controversy, but considering the matter, after all, separated for several years, some young people and non-professional debate on the issue who were not clear, but the discussion itself was not enough depth and detailed, some problems still not addressed, so the feeling that the need for further comment; by comparison, “Declaration” of several representative Chinese translation, including 20 years translation Chen Wangdao, 30, and Xu Bing's translation of Ch'eng, 40's Qin Bangxian (Bo Gu) translation of, 50 years after the Central Bureau for the translation, then contact the original German and Russian, English translation and with the habits of Chinese words, I am present in the version translated as “destroy” Although there are no problems in meaning, but, after all, is subject to the Russian translation effects, there are still some lack of accuracy, there is room for improvement, so in proposed to be discussed in this together, it still has its significance.
Second, with regard to the intention and the translation of the word Aufhebung
King Shall Live talking about in his article he co-wrote with Hu Deping old to process. He said Hu Deping told him that Russia's “Pravda” theory Director ˹˹ Wen wrote an article that the “Communist Manifesto” and “elimination of private ownership” is not used in the German original “destroy” but “abandoned.” Hu let him go to the Central Bureau of Yin and Syria Mr. Yi check this. Yin pointed to “Declaration,” German said to him, “You see, Marx was not used here Abschaffung (destroy), but Aufhebung (abandoned)!” Said Zhang brought it with Hu, Hu was very excited advocate “must write articles published.” Hu Youyi article after article written questions raised major, think we should ask for instructions to the Central Propaganda Department, it was only because the text unsuitable for public disclosure that the Central Propaganda Department issued, it was later in-house publications published.
It should be noted that, as I have in the introduction to the already said, Aufhebung in German Village is a multi-meaning words, a “remove”, “abolish” and multiple meanings, although in the “German-Chinese Dictionary” also listed “discard” the meaning, but does not moderate as ˹˹ Yin Yi said Syria only when, as the term “abandoned” Solutions. Tesla moderate Yin Xuyi leave specific language environment that Aufhebung can be translated as “abandoned” and can not be translated as “eliminated” is clearly one-sided view, undesirable. In fact, in German Village, Abschaffung and Aufhebung have “repealed” means, why Mr. Yin Yi Syria Abschaffung that can be translated as “eliminated”, and equally opposed to “abolish” the meaning of Aufhebung translated as “destroy” mean? This is clearly unreasonable.
Reads thus, can not fail to mention Mr. Li Tong's “<Communist Manifesto> in an original interpretation and translation of the word Aufhebung Opinion” article, as Levin first raised the issue, but also a more detailed argument, but not the past on some issues and discussion, and now proposed for discussion is still valuable. Lee said in that article, “According to our authority and Shanghai Translation Publishing House Publishing House Commercial Press published two” German-Chinese dictionary “, check all the Chinese interpretation of a total of five Aufhebung 14 (such as pick up, retain, abolish, repeal, terminate, offset, [old] arrest, [philosophy] discarded and so on) without 'elimination' meaning. take another look at international practice “Cassell's German English Dictionary” (“Kaiser Linde Ying Dictionary”), all of its Interpretation of 5 40 (such as lift [filed]; Pick [pick]; Keep [maintained]; cancet [Cancel]; terminate [end]; balanceout [offset], etc.), also did not 'destroy' die out; perish) meaning. “
However, in my view, Lee said Aufhebung
“Eradication of non-meaning” is clearly arbitrary. In fact, the Commercial Press and the Shanghai Translation Publishing House of the two “German-Chinese Dictionary” in all “Cancel” and “abolition” of meaning, and “Cancel” and “abolish” and “eliminate” the meaning is completely consistent. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences edited by the language of “Modern Chinese Dictionary” in the interpretation, “destroy” the second meaning of the word when he said, “to destroy; get rid of (hostile or harmful to people or things).” Levin cited the “international practice” Cassell's German English Dictionary “(” Kaiser Linde Ying Dictionary “), its all a total of five 40 Interpretation (such as lift [filed]; Pick [pick]; Keep [maintained]; cancet [Cancel]; terminate [end]; balanceout [offset], etc.) “actually happens is not included abolition [repeal] mean, this is very surprising, because edited by Engels in 1888 the” Declaration “English translation the word in the translation of German Aufhebung is used in this abolition [repealed]. Particularly puzzling is that although strongly advocated the Aufhebung Levin word translated as “abandoned,” but he did not tell us this is very reliable, “Kaiser Linde Ying Dictionary” in the entry in the Aufhebung have “abandoned “meaning, because if there is” discard “the meaning that he is undoubtedly an important argument is based, why not mark it out? It appears that he is in trouble – not that he needs to find the word. In this way, he had a very disadvantageous position.
On this issue, Lee admitted, “Cancel”, “repeal”, “terminate”, “destroy” contain “removed” means, but he believes that “the first three words and 'destroy' more, an additional meaning different, does not mean get rid of things no longer exist, does not change, no updates, no longer life. ” He said, 'destroy' the meaning of the 'off' character, Charles “Chinese Dictionary”, “Ci Yuan”, 'destroy' those who do also, and must also cut off too, most are, its the degree is extremely removed, and categorically eliminate spare no pains to make the other extinct. Again, 'destroy' the emotional significance of prominent convey intense emotion and a strong tendency to voice strong, rational sense weak; 'Cancel''repeal''end' moderate tone, tend to reason. “Levin of these statements, many of which are subjective speculation that he is not true. In fact, the” Cancel “,” repeal “,” terminate “the three words and” destroy “the same word, meaning also” extreme of the ” This is something we can even Levin on “eliminating” the explanation in verified. He said, “destroy” and “destroy” the word is “absolutely eradicate spare no pains to make each other's extinction”, where he actually is eradicate the “except” to explain the word “eliminate” the word. should say the Chinese in the “except” the word is the number of words and idioms, such as “remove”, “eradication”, “abolish,” “blow away the cobwebs” “pesticides and Hennessy,” “getting rid”, “completely eradicate the evil.” Levin said there are “categorically spare no pains” of the mean; and Levin said that “does not mean get rid of things no longer exist, do not change not updated, not health, “and so has nothing to do with these words. People say,” eliminating traitors, “” Riot, “” evil “, etc., should also want them to regenerate, updates, is once exist? in Here we have seen some people have special feelings, they oppose the “elimination of private ownership,” the translation, but it was like private ownership to regeneration, renewal and is once more there will be eternal and everlasting! However, this can only be wishful thinking wishful thinking of some people, but with the “Declaration” theory of Lima En general is irrelevant!
Advocated the “elimination of private ownership” to be translated as “abandon private ownership” of the people, to where to find the theoretical basis from Hegel. We know that Hegel in the “little logic,” a phrase book had Aufhebung be discussed. He said, “Here, we have to learn German in the way of aufheben (renounce) the word's double meaning. Abandoned to cancel or abandon the term sometimes includes the meaning, and so meaning, for example, we say that a law or a kind of system was discarded. Second, to maintain or abandon it contains the meaning of preservation. In this sense, we often say that something is properly discarded (saved) the. two word usage, so the word is both positive and negative sense, real things can not be regarded as accidental and can not therefore be Zechi language confusion. On the contrary, here we must recognize the spirit of the German language full of speculation, it's one or the other reason beyond the mere abstract way. “(” little logic “, Commercial Press, 1980, 2nd edition, p. 213) In this passage worthy of our attention is that Hegel aufheben divided into positive and negative. In his view, as a “cancel” and “abandon” tells aufheben are positive, but as a “stored” tells aufheben is negative. From here we can see aufheben intention is negative, the master of the Hegelian dialectic as a focus for no more than yes. However be pointed out that this is the “little logic” Although the study by China expert Mr. He Lin Hegel's philosophy of translation, but it still can ge asked the Office business. Such as “aufheben (discard) the double meaning of the word” originally refers to the aufheben double meaning of the word, but because of the translator in aufheben added a “(abandoned)”, so put aufheben and “discarded” equivalent of the up. In fact, aufheben is a multi-meaning words, Hegel also says it “sometimes” as a kind of meaning (“Cancel,” “give up”) stress, and sometimes (“used to say”) for the other meaning (“saved” ) say, but because the two combined with a will of “abandoned” translation, the results will become, at any time aufheben are both these two righteous. Of course, the Aufhebung (verb aufheben transformation gerund) translated as “discarded” did not start with Mr. He Lin, Guo vigorously, and Mr. Wang Yanan two 30s in the last century translation of “Capital” had on many occasions when its translated as “sublation “the. I think this translation polysemy easily cause confusion, is not desirable. This, we think some of the translator on the past, “State and Revolution” and “Critique of the Gotha Program”, also have similar problems, as Russian ѧӧ term is a polysemous word, the “Law” and “rights” are two meanings (German word Recht same, it is also both “Law” means, but also “rights” means), the result of Chinese translators to coin a new word – “rights” of the two different meanings of the word combining two into one, together, the results confused the people who are not sure whether it's true meaning is “law” or that “rights”, has caused much confusion. Of course, this situation was corrected, published in 1995, “Lenin Anthology” and “Selection of Marx and Engels,” no longer use the “rights” of the translation, but under different circumstances to their respective translated “law” and ” rights “of the. In my view, “abandoned” in the past translated as “rights” of the case, they belong to the same nature, now it should be a clean-up is.
In this regard, shu in the “tube cone made” in German aufheben spoke of no use when the term “abandoned” the word, but to take a transliteration of the main method of both free translation, translation of the aufheben as “Aufheben.” Of course, the main consideration here is the pronunciation of the word, but also to take care of its meaning – “Aufheben” have “mystery hidden in a prominent change in” the meaning. He wrote: “that is 'Aufheben' terms, stating that his Hegel Yun 'extinction' (ein Ende machen) and the 'save' (erhalten) ambiguity.” (Shu: “tube cone made”, Zhonghua 1979 edition, p. 2) In addition, Mr. Qian also added a footnote: Cf.Die Phnomenologie des Geistes, Akaemie Verlag.90: “es ist Egieren und ein Aufhewahren zugleich “. I am in the “Phenomenology of Mind” is not found in the Chinese translation of the statement, the German original is even more difficult to find, but “little logic” in a similar case, previously cited before, do not repeat them here when. The problem is, Lee is aware of shu these words, he tells Mr. Qian's “Aufheben” in Shihai Note on the “tube cone made” the page, but deliberately avoided the money Mr. paraphrased the words of Hegel's phrase is essential. Here not only shu that Aufheben the “extinction” means, but I think it Hegel ein Ende machen (“to end”, “to end”, “to make finished”) meaning. This is Lee opposes Aufheben translated as “eliminate” it is obviously very bad for it, so he took phrase Activity hidden up. In order to cover up, all apparent seriousness, he said, “The definition of a foreign language words must be accurate, must rely on a good dictionary, even if the translator of a big personal memory alone can not fully grasp the text in different languages, the complexity of certain words meaning and relationships. “alluding to Mr. Qian wrong. However, with this “true story faded” and “fake English Village words” to solve academic problems is right Are you? Is this a decent scholar should do it? This issue is also worth mentioning that the Shanghai Translation Publishing's “German-Chinese Dictionary” Aufhebung term in despite “abandoned” means, even “arrest” means, but the state is “[old] arrest [Philosophy] discarded, “meaning that these outdated, or biased towards a particular subject, no longer a universal significance, are being phased out into. In fact, no one translation is now used, again today stressed that such translation is clearly inappropriate.
To correctly understand the Aufhebung, should not only be aware of the Hegelian dialectic, but also should be aware of Marx's dialectics. Marx says, “I dialectical approach, fundamentally, not only with Hegel's dialectical methods, but also and its opposite. In Hegel's view, the thought process that he called the idea without even turn it into independent of the main thought process, is the Creator of the reality of things, but the reality of things is the thought process of the external performance. I read the contrary opinion, what the concept is nothing like the human mind and the minds of the material transformed stuff it. “” To him, the dialectic is inverted with the. must be turned upside down in order to find the mysterious case of the rational kernel. “He added,” Dialectics, in its mystical form, became a German fashionable thing, because it seems to make existing things seem glorious. dialectics, in reasonable shape, the rise to the bourgeoisie and the voice of the angry rhetoric and terror, because the dialectic in the existing understanding of things both positive things included in the existing no understanding that the inevitable demise of the existing understanding of things; dialectics a fait accompli in the form of each is from its temporary aspect to understand; dialectics do not worship anything, its nature, it is critical and revolution. “(” Capital “, Volume 1, People's Publishing House in 1975 edition, p. 24) suggested that Hegel's dialectics is conservative, while Marx's dialectics of revolution, this is not correct. Dialectics as a complete development of doctrine, no matter where in Hegel, or Marx are the revolution. Engels said that Hegel's “true meaning and nature of the revolution”, “is that it is completely negative about the person's thinking and actions with the ultimate nature of all results of the view.” (“Marx and Engels, Selected Works,” 4 Volume, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 216) For Marxists, all the things that happened in history will disappear in history, the eternal thing does not exist. Commodity, currency so, capital is also true; family, so private ownership, class, party and state as well. That these things will not be able to forever destroy and not only inconsistent with the Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism, does not conform to the Hegelian dialectic. Marx said, “can not replace the criticism of weapons, weapons of criticism, material force can only be used to destroy material; but the theory holds the masses becomes a material force.” (“Marx and Engels, Selected Works,” Volume 1, People's Publishing House 1995 edition, p. 9) He also said, “Philosophy and the proletariat as their material of weapons, the same, also the philosophy of the proletariat as their spiritual weapon; thinking of lightning once hit the piece of naive people complete garden, Germany people will liberate a people. “(ibid., 15-16) stressed the material strength and material weapons, while emphasis on spiritual strength and spirit of the weapons, this is the place where Marx and clever than Hegel. For communist revolution of the proletariat, must be picked up Marx said the two forces and two arms, and strive for the elimination of private ownership, they will not, and for the preservation of bourgeois private property and put together their own weapons, is obvious.
Translation of the term, Hu Deping and King Shall Live in the article said, “First of all, the former Soviet Union the German 'abandon' the meaning wrong translated into Russian, 'destroy', while the Chinese version of the Youyi original Russian text, repeated the baseless assertion of incorrect interpretation 'destroy', resulting in unnecessary fog and confusion. “This statement is very arbitrary. “Declaration” Two Russian translation, but not “the former Soviet Union” during the translation. First translation of the 1869 translation by the Bakunin, Russian capitalism has developed since that time have been considered to be “anecdote”; the second is the 1882 translation by the Russian Marxist Plekhanov first translated and published , the Isle of Man whom also wrote the preface. Marxist Plekhanov Russian language theoretical level and a very high standard, Engels and Lenin, he has a very high rating, who ˹˹ Is Russia on such a high temperature level, to determine general column Khanov translation, Lenin also read the “Declaration” is translated wrong? In fact, the above-mentioned statement read Hegel for aufheben will Aufhebung translated into Russian ߧڧا֧ߧڧ (destroy) it is not out of the question “wrong translation”, but a very accurate translation. Yes, in Russian there is also a with Aufhebung very close to the word, is ߧڧ, it is more than one meaning of the word, the “removal”, “collection”, “destroy”, “Cancel”, and “revoked” and the multiple meanings, if Aufhebung translated ߧ – ڧ course is to save trouble, but this ambiguity will arise in the reader is clearly irresponsible; Plekhanov based on his “Declaration,” a deep understanding of, translated into the ߧڧا֧ߧڧ (eliminate) the very clear, the reader will not be misleading. But also see Marx and Engels were able to read Russian books, if they found one of the most critical in this place to a “mistranslation”, they will not to correct it? Russian translation of the translation, we can also use the English translation of the translation to make a support. We know there are two English translation, the first translation was in 1850, Ms. ˷ translation; second version was translated in 1888 by the excessive “capital” Most of the ¶ Volume 1 translation, Engels also edited the translation together with him, and whom also wrote the preface. English translation in 1888 where, Aufhebung been translated Abolition (“repeal”, “destroy”), and are not translated as “sublation.” Even the “Declaration” On certain translation Is Engels are also “wrong translation”? This is fair and reasonable?
Of course, Man books in translation where people can see that Aufhebung translated as “sublation” situation. Have mentioned earlier, strong and Wang Yanan Guo early 30s of last century translation of “Capital”, Volume 3, when the Aufhebung been translated as “discarded” Later, the Central Bureau in the translation of “Capital”, Volume 3, also followed this translation. It should be said, “abandon” this translation is not only in the “Declaration” does not fit in, in the “Capital” and in the same manuscript is not suitable. Take the “Capital”, Volume 3, Chapter 27 discusses the section, its German original is: Abgesehn von dem Aktienwesen – das eine Aufhebung der kapitalistischen Privatindustrie auf Grundlage des kapitalistischen Systems selbst ist, und in demselben Umfang, worin es sich ausdehnt und neue Produktionssphren ergreift, die Privatindustrie vernichtet -, bietet der Kredit … …. The current Chinese translation will be translated into: “to share the system – it is the capitalist system itself on the basis of capitalism, when he was abandoned enterprises; with its expansion and invasion of new production sectors, it also the same extent, eliminate the private property – do not talk aside, the credit … … “(” The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, “46, People's Publishing House, 2004 edition, p. 497) had, Aufhebung and vernichten just use different words express the same a meaning, but it is actually used in the translation of two very different meaning of the word. Obviously, this is contrary to the original spirit. It is noteworthy that translated into English translation will Aufhebung abolition (destroy), but will vernichten translated destroy (extinct), the two words mean very close, they have a very clear negative sense, not only words with more coordination, but also more the spirit of the original Spanish, is a Chinese translation of reference and reference.
Third, from the “Declaration” before and after, and other works of Marx and Engels see “eradication of private ownership” of the translation
Comrade Gu Jinping, “Economics News” No. 3 of 2003 published in “the” Communist Manifesto “that” elimination of private ownership “of the translation is correct,” an article in Wen Ho Lee has been targeted, including Hu Deping, other commentators, including King Shall Live advocated the “elimination of private ownership” to “abandon private ownership 'point of view, has provided some clarification. He writes:
“First Look” Declaration “in the context of this sentence. Above, said: 'abolition of pre-existing property relations is not unique to the characteristics of communism. … … For example, the French Revolution abolished the feudal ownership, on behalf of ownership to the bourgeoisie, communism is not the abolition of ownership in general, but the abolition of bourgeois property. 'then Isle of Man concluded that:' In this sense, his theory of the Communists could it summed me a Tel: elimination of private ownership. '. above the' abolition 'Original Abschaffung. Aufhebung and Abschaffung clearly the meaning is the same, just different terms only. look below. Isle of Man listed below are the bourgeoisie of the Communists criticisms and attacks, saying that you communists to 'destroy individuality', 'destroy families' and so on. Here 'eliminate' the original words are Aufhebung. If, as the views of critics explained to him the 'abandoned', the asset This class is not a condemnation of the blame. “Here, I would like to add one sentence: replace the feudal and bourgeois ownership of private property ownership is replaced by another with a private property, Marx and Engels also used the occasion Shangju” repeal “word; and to replace the bourgeois socialist public ownership of private property is actually buried in the private ownership, is a more profound transformation of ownership, more fundamental changes in how they will not be talking down” abolish “but can only say” abandoned well “? This is tenable?
In this regard, Gu also to Engels in the “Principles of Communism” the “abolition of private ownership,” the paper pointed out that “repealing” the word of the text both Abschaffung, there Aufhebung, shows that they are “one sense, which is not unless the interpretation may be extended. “He cited Engels,” Principles of Communism “in 14, 15, 17 issues I talked about abolishing private ownership with the Abschaffung, and the first 16 questions about” abolition of private ownership “with the Aufhebung. Clearly, when the same question in the discussion, in order to express not too monotonous people tend to have the same meaning using different words, but do not use different words with different meaning, or it will cause confusion. Gu also in English translation and French translation of these two Engels Review by the authority of the translation, for example, that Aufhebung fact is, “repealing” the meaning. Because the British and French translations will Aufhebung translated into abolition, Britain and France in two languages, abolition is only a “repeal”, “Cancel” means, but did not “abandon” means. Gu also pointed out that “Marx and Engels in the” Communist League told the central committee alliance book “said, 'For us, the problem is not the change in private ownership, not to cover up the class antagonism, but in the elimination of classes.' Mentioned here elimination of private ownership when the use of German is Vernichtung, only the term 'elimination and eradication of' meaning, but spoke of 'elimination of class' when the use of German is Aufhebung, visible Aufhebung and Vernichtung are interlinked. “Besides, the paper also cited the “Declaration” 1882 Russian words of the preamble of Man: “” Communist Manifesto “task is to declare ownership of the bourgeoisie must perish.”
My view, Gu pointed out that the above points are very important, basically the problem has been clarified. King Shall Live, if not in favor of Gu's view should address these points to refute, Unfortunately, even where he is also not involved, but to continue repeating their past old tune. This is clearly not the treatment in the debate over the seriousness it deserves.
Of course, to negate the “elimination of private ownership,” they have made their own “reason”, that is, they think Man's “elimination of private ownership” and their “Declaration,” presented at the end of the second chapter of the 10 measures are “contradictory” . Gu did not address this point, and Chang's “new” article did not mention. The confusion, Zhang is not already changed the views on this issue? For a serious commentators to abandon their viewpoint is, but should be openly and publicly admit, surreptitiously giving up is not enough. On this issue, my view is: there is absolutely no contradiction here. “Elimination of private ownership” is a major goal of the theory of communism, and “10 measures” only in some countries the proletariat to power after the transition period “to take” some of the specific practices, how to use some of the countries in transition period to negate some of the specific practices of big goal? This is clearly committed a historical mistake. Speaking from the way of thinking, Hu Deping and King Shall Live apparently did not make clear the practical application of theory and principle of the difference between. In the “Declaration”, the elimination of private ownership is a highly general theoretical principles, – in one sentence all the communist ideology, while the 10 measures is the general principle under the historical conditions at the time the specific application, how can use concrete application of the principle to deny the principle itself? Is this not the cart before the horse yet? In fact, Marx and Engels in 1872 as the “Declaration” written in German preamble explained very clearly on this issue. They said, “Regardless of the last 25 years the situation has changed much, the” Declaration “the general principles set out to present the whole that is entirely correct. Some of the Di Fang could have done some modifications. The practical application of these principles , as the “Declaration” says, at any time to be at the time of the historical conditions, so the second chapter at the end of the measures proposed by those who are not of particular significance. If it is in today, this section will have in many ways different ways of writing up. “(” Marx and Engels, Selected Works, “Volume 1, People's Publishing House 995 Edition, pages 248-249) Marx and Engels the words of the methodology is undoubtedly an important meaning, that is, must be strictly distinguished general principles and practical application of these principles. The principle itself, despite the passage of 25 years, “until now was completely correct”; and practical application of theory is different, it is to be “historical conditions at the time,” and can not be immutable, “so Chapter II at the end of the measures proposed are not of particular significance. “while Hu Deping and King Shall Live And why was a” no special significance “of” 10 steps “to deny” completely correct “the” general principles “, which is clearly and Marx and Engels, this is a very important discussion of methodological significance contrary.
4, split Hu Deping, King Shall Live Isle of Man on the private ownership of so-called “can never be 'eliminated' but the 'sublation'” of the absurd
Zhang said, “other works of Marx and Engels also proved that the two of them for private ownership of the position and attitude, can never be 'eliminated' but the 'abandoned'.” This is he and Hu Deping in the “Marx on the elimination of private ownership The other solution, “by insisting view. In the before and after the two articles are cited in a number of “example” card Ming Maen on private ownership “can never be 'eliminated' but the 'abandoned'.”
Here, Hu Deping and the King Shall Live guilty of an obvious logical mistake: Man on the private ownership “has always been not 'destroy' but to 'abandon'” the universal negative conclusion, how can a few “examples” will be able to prove it ? To special, said the premise of the negative, how can infer universal negative conclusion? Notice, to permit private ownership Ming Maen “can never be 'eliminated' but 'discard'” This conclusion can only complete works of Marx and Engels as the basis cited by some is simply not solve the problem. The style is also relevant. We have to ask Hu Deping and King Shall Live: You are not read through all the writings of Marx and Engels? Is not clear that they have discussed the issue of private ownership of all language? And it is not that a Chinese translation, but rather the original German, you do it? If you do not do that – I have enough reasons to believe that you absolutely do not do this, you qualified to say what the attitude of Marx and Engels on the private ownership “has always been not 'destroy' but to 'abandon'” that something is ?
Problem lies, you have to cite a few examples, for its part, is, and you want to explain the quite different. Arguments and arguments that run counter to this is in academic research in an extremely strange.
Cited the example of Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts,” saying: “Communism is the private property of the person's self-alienation of the active discard”; of private ownership has a “historical necessity”, “from the reality of the development process must produce the victory of the capitalist owners of the land, and developed on undeveloped private property, private property is not entirely a victory “;” capital of the world must be in its development process to achieve its abstract, that is pure performance “, it inevitably to “a culmination of all private property, the highest stage.” (“The Complete Works of Marx and Engels,” Volume 42, People's Publishing House, 1979 Edition, 12, 121, 110, 106) Here, the author's quotation is not accurate. If the last one, the original, it says: “The confrontation between labor and capital, one reached the limit, they will inevitably become the culmination of all the private property relations, the highest stage and perish.” (Ibid., 106 pages) it should be said, those of Marx words do not just talk the emergence and development of private property, and he said to its “limit” and “destruction.” However, both Hu and Zhang in the past written article, or for “new writing” of the article, the “opposition”, “limit” and “destruction” of the text have been made by hands and feet, that any erased. That distort Marx's original, then they can see the attitude of Marxism. In fact, even if there is no “limit”, “die” message, from the “top” and the “highest stage” it is not difficult to understand these words in the nature of private ownership of inevitable doom. Engels said, “In the vertex is to change” (“Selected Works of Marx and Engels,” Vol 3, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 753), and this change of course, not the quantity, but to a qualitative change. In fact, here Marx said, “limit”, “top”, the “highest stage” and “destroyed” with his “Critique of Political Economy,” the preface says, “then the era of social revolution has come” (ibid. , Volume 2, p. 33) means is the same. As communism is private property “positive sublation” actually should be “positive Aufhebung”, this Aufhebung “that is,” repealing “,” Cancel “or” eliminate “meaning, translated into the” discard “is not only and “manuscript” contrary to the original intent, and the historical materialism of Marx's basic view is clear divergence.
Man cited another example of the “holy family” of the words: “Indeed, the private ownership of economic movement in their own into their own destruction,” (“The Complete Works of Marx and Engels,” volume 2, People's Publishing House, 1957 edition, p. 44 page), but not a word of argument even complete, as Isle of Man followed, says, “but it is only through not to transfer it, not consciously, and with it contrary to the will, to the objective nature of things development constraints, only by the proletariat as proletariat – that aware of their poverty, poor in spirit, this awareness of their own non-human in order to eliminate the non-human nature – the production, to do this . “deliberately omitted on the back of the case, the intention is certainly very clear that private ownership would like to take note of their own destruction. However, this by no means the views of Marx and Engels. Just before this statement, Isle of Man clearly pointed out that “in the context of the entire opposition, the private person is conservative, the proletarian is damaged areas. Arising from the former to keep opposing actions arising from the elimination of the latter opposite action. “(ibid.) to leave the proletariat, the diggers destroy capitalism and private ownership of the struggle, private ownership is never self-extinction.
Man cited another example of “German Ideology” in the words: “Private property is to a certain stage of development of productive forces on the natural form of communication, such exchanges become a new form of private property occurred in the productivity of the shackles of the past is not eradicated, and are directly essential to the production of material life conditions. “(” The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, “Vol 3, People's Publishing House in 1960 edition, p. 410-411 pages) is to understand the meaning of this passage, it only shows that private ownership relations of production only in a development of productive forces will be destroyed when the yoke is the elimination of private ownership in terms of speaking, but simply do not negate the elimination of private ownership of means, Hu, Zhang Man actually deny it as proof of elimination of private ownership is really for were incredible.
What is more, the author actually quoted Engels in the “Principles of Communism” that's “For the handicraft workshop and large industrial development in the initial stage, in addition to private ownership, there can be any other form of ownership.” (“The Complete Works of Marx and Engels” Volume 4, People's Publishing House, 1965 edition, p. 565) to “prove” that Man is the elimination of private ownership is “no”, and does not know that Engels remark was in answer to question 15 – “so that the abolition of private property over the past is not possible? “when speaking. Any person who is willing to brain teasers are not that “past” in the “handicraft workshop and large the initial stage of industrial development” does not mean impossible to eliminate private ownership in 1848, can not explain more than a century after its still can not eliminate the private ownership . This is just a condition, and this and the Communist Party to eliminate private ownership as their struggle is clearly not the same level of problems. In this regard, we see that Engels in the “Principles of Communism” to question 20 is also discussed in the “complete abolition of private ownership will yield any results,” a clearly the future of society. For the Isle of Man for elimination of private ownership is very clear to understand and very specific thing and where would like Hu, Chang stated it.
Relationship to space, it seems unnecessary to quote them out of the analysis and then a stroke. However, a Ti Maen prominently mentioned in his major work “Das Kapital” and the “Anti-Duhring,” The main point to treat the problem of private ownership is essential. We all know, Marx in “Capital”, Volume 1 of Chapter 24 with a conclusive one, then: “The monopoly of capital becomes, together with such a monopoly, and monopolistic in this mode of production flourished up the shackles. Production information centralized and socialized labor, to the shell with their capitalist incompatible state. This would destroy the shell. The knell of capitalist private ownership sounded. deprive persons should be denied. ” (“Capital”, Volume 1, People's Publishing House 975 edition, the first 831-832 pages) and Engels in his major book, “Anti-Duhring,” and Part III (Socialist), also had a band in the concluding words: ” expansion of the means of production capacity by the bursting of the capitalist mode of production of the shackles imposed on it. the productivity of the liberation from this bondage, is constantly accelerating the development of productive forces only prerequisite is the production itself is actually infinite and therefore growth The only prerequisite. but not all. the means of production by social ownership, not only to eliminate the production of the existing artificial barriers, but also the physical elimination of productivity and product waste and destruction, and destruction of such waste is not in the current get rid of the partner, and in times of crisis reached its peak. Moreover, this share is also due to elimination of the current ruling class and its political representatives of extravagant overspending without saving the entire society the means of production and product great. through the social production not only to ensure all members of society and every day there are plenty of rich material life, but also may ensure that their physical and intellectual access to full freedom of hair with the use of this possibility is the first time, but it does is there. “(” Selected Works of Marx and Engels, “the end of volume, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 632-633 pages)
If Marx and Engels in their major works in the above expressed view with conclusive summarized in one sentence, that is, they do not, “Declaration” that the “elimination of private ownership,” What? !
See, Hu Deping, King Shall Live also read some Marx and Engels's book, but did not read into. They actually said, not only the “Declaration”, “other works of Marx and Engels also proved that the two of them for private ownership of the position and attitude, can never be 'eliminated' but the 'abandoned'.” This is people puzzled : how did they read the works of Marx and Engels? The only reasonable explanation is that they do not learn from Isle of Man works, but the authors would like to find in the Isle of Man in their own and that they represent what the class needs. Marxism is scientific truth proletariat, standing on such a class stand, use such a pragmatic attitude, is not any fundamental grasp of the truth of Marxism!
5, I of
As noted above, in the “Declaration” will Aufhebung translated “destroy” is correct, and advocating change translated as “abandoned” the view is wrong. Of course, many reasons to support it, have been discussed before, there certainly does not need to repeat, however, from the translation of “Declaration” version of history, from the Chinese words with custom view, I think we also have this issue room for improvement. We know that the “Declaration” is the first Chinese translation of Chen Wang Road in September 1920 under the River Chao translation of “declaration” on the text and with reference to 1888's “Declaration,” the English translation. The translation is: “So the theory of the Communist Party, in a word: Abolition of private property.” (“Wang Tao Chen Translations of” burden University Press, 2009 edition, p. 5) to 1938, China Publishing House has published Ch'eng and Xu Bing by the German translation under the new Chinese translation, the translation is the translation of this sentence: “In this sense, the Communists can be summarized his theory in the sentence: abolition of private property . “(” Communist Manifesto “, China Press, 1938 edition, p. 33) and to 40 years, Bo Gu (Qin Bangxian) also under the” Declaration “in the Russian translation of a new translation. These words have been translated as: “In this sense, his theory of the Communists can be expressed in one sentence: destroy private property.” (“Communist Manifesto”, Jiaodong Xinhua bookstores, p. 53) After the founding of new China , the Central Bureau in the translation of “The Complete Works of Marx and Engels,” the process of reference according to Russian and German were translated, the phrase was translated as: “From this sense, the Communists could take their theories with a words that come out: the eradication of private property. “(” The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, “Volume 4, ist edition 1965, 480 pages). Into the 90's after the “Declaration” has been edited according to German, these words are also minor amendments to be translated: “From this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up his own words: eliminate private ownership . “(” Marx and Engels, Selected Works, “Volume 1, People's Publishing House, 1995, p. 286) should be said that the Chinese translation for each of the translation of the phrase expressed a” declaration “of intent, what does not exist” Translation error “issue; while the later version than the previous version have also been improved. This reflects the translator of several generations of Chinese propaganda in the “Declaration” thinking for your effort and contribution, their hard work deserves our respect for each person, we should be grateful to them.
However, if asked to be more stringent requirements, it should be said that translation of “declaration” should be under the Isle of Man first used when writing the text version of the German text, the text of other versions, Japanese, English, Russian translation but in the circumstances as a last resort, under normal circumstances should try to avoid. I remember several years ago in an academic conference with when he was deputy director of the Central Bureau of Li Qiqing comrades talking about “Capital” and “The Complete Works of Marx and Engels,” Russian translation by the impact, he made it very clear at that time that to remove the traces of the Russian text. I think this attitude is correct. However, the Aufhebung translated “destroy” is actually affected by the current Russian translation. Russian translation is used because ߧڧا֧ߧڧ, Bo Gu be translated according to the Russian translation of “destroy”, has been unchanged for decades, until recently the newly published “Collected Works of Marx and Engels” were followed in this translation. Of course, this translation of the meaning and there is no problem, but leaving obvious traces according to Russian translation, supposedly it should be changed translation. This is one. Second, from the past, especially in translation from the German translation of Ch'eng and Xu Bing, a Chinese translation under the point of view, the Aufhebung translated as “repeal” is not only the meaning accurately expresses the intent of helping to eliminate some proposals to change translated as “abandoned” people an excuse to avoid unnecessary controversy, but as to the current version has been “private property” to be translated as “private ownership” with words from the Chinese terms, translated as “abolish” and “private ownership “up and also more in line with Chinese habits. In this regard, Mr. Li Tong also believes that the “elimination” in general and more specific things (such as class enemies, illiteracy, typos, etc.) with the use of, and “abolish” and are often more abstract things (such as treaty system, ownership, etc.) with the use. It should be said, this view is correct. Since there is more involved in the abstract system (private ownership), the translation of “abolition of private property” clearly than the translation of “elimination of private ownership,” more in line with the norms of Chinese. Of course, this view but I read the “Declaration” in different translations and the controversy generated by the process of the article my humble opinion, put forward for Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the experts and readers reference, how do they translate to better, but also for more for the careful study.
Disclaimer: the article just my opinion, does not represent point of view —– Utopia http://www.wyzxsx.com
columbia clothing, zara clothing, nike clothing,
