关于《剩余价值学说史》的两个版本及其中译——兼评《上海社会科学志》对《剩余价值学说史》的说明

About the Two Editions and a Chinese Translation of A Theoretical History of Surplus Value——With a Review on the Explanation to A Theoretical History of Surplus Value by Shanghai Chronicle of Social Sciences

据《上海社会科学志》记载:1949年在上海出版的《剩余价值学说史》是考茨基原著,也是《资本论》第4卷。我认为这是错误的,事实上它是马克思的遗稿,由考茨基编辑,不是作为《资本论》的第4卷,而是作为独立的著作出版的.该文作者可能将它和其后的苏联版《剩余价值学说史》,即《资本论》第4卷相混淆了。其所以有苏联版,是由于苏联认为考茨基版有缺点。比较两个版本的优劣,是一项独立的研究工作,本文无意涉及。本文只指出:苏联版有一“概说”,用以统率全书;考茨基版则无。苏联版的章节标题是有倾向性的,有的不一定正确,可能发生误导;考茨基版的标题则是中性的。苏联版在我国出版后,考茨基版就不再印行。其实,两个版本都应出版,以利学者作比较研究。

According to the record in Shanghai Chronicle of Social Sciences, A Theoretical History of Surplus Value published in Shanghai in 1949 was written by Kautsky, and was the fourth volume of Das Kapital. I maintain that is wrong. The fact is, the said work, edited by Kautsky, is a posthumous manuscript by Marx, not as the fourth volume of Das Kapital, but as an independent work. The author of that article might have mixed it with later Soviet Union edition of A Theoretical History of Surplus Value, i. e. , the fourth volume of Das Kapital. It was because Soviet Union believes the Kautsky edition had shortcomings, so there was a Soviet Union edition. It is an independent work to compare excellent or inferior points of these two editions, which is not intentionally involved in this article. This article points out that there is 'a brief account' in Soviet Union edition, covering the whole book, while there is not one in Kautsky edition. The titles of chapters and sections in Soviet Union edition is preferring, and some of them are incorrect, which would lead to a wrong way, while those in Kautsky edition are neutral. The Kautsky edition was no longer in print after the Soviet Union edition was published in China. These two editions, in fact, should be published together, so that it is beneficial for comparative studies by scholars.