partial translation 01_03_03.md

pcm/Human Action/01_03_03.md

@@ -16,17 +16,21 @@ De service wey bourgeois economics render to de bourgeoisie na two fold for Marx
 
 Now, recourse to de tori of rationalization  dey provide  psychological description of de incentives wey dey impell a man or a group of men make dem formulate theorem abi a whole theory. But e nor predicate anything about de validity abi invalidity of de theory advanced. If e dey proved say de theory concerned dey untenable, de notion of rationalization na psychological interpretation of de causes wey make dia authors dey liable to error. But if we nor dey for de position to find any fault for de theory advanced, nor appeal to de concept of rationalization fit possibly explode im validity. If na true say de economist get for dia subconsciousness nor design wey pass de one wey dem go take use justify de unfair claims of de capitalists, dia theories go nevertheless dey quite correct.   Means nor dey to take expose faulty theory other than to refute am by discursive reasoning and to substitute better theory for am. If we wan deal with de theorem of Pythagoras or with de theory of comparative cost, we nor dey interested for de psychological factors wey impell Pythagoras and Ricardo to construct dese theorems, although, dese things fit dey important for de historian and de biographer. For science de only question wey dey relevant na whether or not dese theorems fit stand de test of rational examination. De social abi racial background of dia authors dey beside de point.
 
+Na fact say people in de pursuit of dia selfish interest try to use doctrines wey dey more or less universally accepted by public opinion. Moreover, dem dey eager to invent and to propagate doctrines wey dem fit possibly use to further dia own interests. But dis  nor explain why dat kin doctrine, wey dey favour de interest of a minority and wey dey contrary to de interest of de rest of de people, dey endorsed by public opinion. E nor matter whether dat kin "ideological" doctrine na product of ""false consciousness," wey dey force man make e think unwittingly for manner wey serve de interest of im class, abi whether dem be de product of purposeful distortion of truth, dem must encounter de ideologies of other classed come try to supplant dem. Den a rivalry between antagonistic ideologies go emerge.  De Marxians explain victory and defeat for dat kin conflict as outcome of de interference of historical providence. Geist, de mystical prime mover, dey operate according to definite plan. E lead mankind through various preliminary stages to de final bliss of socialism. Every stage na de product of certain state of technology; all im other characteristics na de necessary superstructure of dis technological state. Geist cause man make e bring about in due time de technological ideas wey dey adequate to de stage wey im live, and to realise dem. All de rest na outgrowth of de state of technology. Na de hand-mill make feudal society; na de steam-mill make capitalism.  [^9] Human go only play ancillary role for dear changes. De inexorable law of historical development force men-- independently of dia own wills- make dem think and behave according to de patterns wey dey corresponding to de material basis of dia age. Men dey fool demsef if dem believe say dem dey free to choose between various ideas and between de thing wey dem dey call truth and error. Dey demsef nor dey think; na historical providence dey manifests imsef for dia thoughts.
+
 Na fact say people in de pursuit of dia selfish interest try to use doctrines wey dey more or less universally accepted by public opinion. Moreover, they are eager to invent and to propagate doctrines which they could possibly use for furthering their own interests. But this does not explain why such doctrines, favoring the interests of a minority and contrary to the interests of the rest of the people, are endorsed by public opinion. No matter whether such "ideological" doctrines are the product of a "false consciousness," forcing a man to think unwittingly in a manner that serves the interests of his class, or whether they are the product of a purposeful distortion of truth, they must encounter the ideologies of other classes and try to supplant them. Then a rivalry between antagonistic ideologies emerges. The Marxians explain victory and defeat in such conflicts as an outcome of the interference of historical providence. Geist, the mythical prime mover, operates according to a definite plan. He leads mankind through various preliminary stages to the final bliss of socialism. Every stage is the product of a certain state of technology; all its other characteristics are the necessary ideological superstructure of this technological state. Geist causes man to bring about in due time the technological ideas adequate to the stage in which he lives, and to realize them. All the rest is an outgrowth of the state of technology. The hand-mill made feudal society; the steam-mill made capitalism.[^9] Human will and reason play only an ancillary role in these changes. The inexorable law of historical development forces men--independently of their wills--to think and to behave according to the patterns corresponding to the material basis of their age. Men fool themselves in believing that they are free to choose between various ideas and between what they call truth and error. They themselves do not think; it is historical providence that manifests itself in their thoughts.
 
-This is a purely mystical doctrine. The only proof given in its support is the recourse of Hegelian dialectics. Capitalistic private property is the first negation of individual private property. It begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation, namely common ownership of the means of production.[^10] It is an undeniable fact that there prevails an irreconcilable conflict of interests between those workers who are employed at union wage rates and those who remain unemployed because the enforcement of union rates prevents the demand for and the supply of labor from finding the appropriate price for meeting. It is no less true that the interests of the workers of the comparatively overpopulated countries and those of the comparatively underpopulated countries are antagonistic with regard to migration barriers. The statement that the interests of all proletarians uniformly require the substitution of socialism for capitalism is an arbitrary postulate of Marx and the other socialists. It cannot be proved by the mere assertion that the socialist idea is the emanation of proletarian thought and therefore certainly beneficial to the interests of the proletariat as such.
+Dis na purely mystical doctrine. De only proof wey dem give in im support na de recourse of Hegelian dialectics. Capitalistic private property na de first negation of individual private property. E begets, with de inexorability of law of nature, im own negation , namely common ownership of de means of production.[^10] Na undeniable fact say dere prevails an irreconcilable conflict of interest between dose workers wey dey employed at union wage rate and dose one wey remain unemployed cos de enforcement of union rates prevents de demand for and de supply of labor say make dem nor find de appropriate price for meeting.  It is nor less true say de interest of de workers of de comparatively overpopulated countries and de one of de comparatively underpopulated countries dey antogonistic with regard to migration barriers. De statement say de interest of all proletarians uniformly require de substitution of socialism for capitalism na de arbitrary postulate of Marx and de other socialists. Dem nor fit prove am by mere assertion say de socialist idea na de emanation of proletarian thought and derefore e dey certainly beneficial to de interests of de proletariat like dat.
+
+One popular interpretation of how de British foreign trade dey liable to change, wey base on top de idea of Sismondi, Frederick List, Marx, and de German Historical school, dey like dis: For de second part of de eighteenth century and for big part of de nineteenth century de thing way British bourgeoisie class interest bin require na free trade policy. And so British political economy come set up free trade doctrine,  and de British manufacturers dem come organize one popular movement wey finally succeed to remove protective tariff dem. Den condition come change later. De British bourgeoisie bin nor fit stand again to compete with odas for foreign manufacturing and protective tariff wey people nid hot hot. Na cos of dis one wey economist dem come substitute one theory of protection for de free trade ideology wey dem already know, so Great Britain come return to protectionism.
 
-A popular interpretation of the vicissitudes of British foreign trade policies, based on the ideas of Sismondi, Frederick List, Marx, and the German Historical School, runs this way: In the second part of the eighteenth century and in the greater part of the nineteenth century the class interests of the British bourgeoisie required a free trade policy. Therefore British political economy elaborated a free trade doctrine, and the British manufacturers organized a popular movement which finally succeeded in abolishing protective tariffs. Then later conditions changed. The British bourgeoisie could no longer stand the competition of foreign manufacturing and badly needed protective tariffs. Consequently the economists substituted a theory of protection for the antiquated free trade ideology, and Great Britain returned to protectionism.
+De first mistake for dis interpretation na say e consider de "bourgeoisie" as one class of de same people wey get de same interest. One businessman go always dey see am as necessary to adjust de conduct of im business make e match de institutional condition of im country. Afta some time wen im go don reach to be entrepreneur and capitalist ,weda tariff dey or not e nor go affecf am. Im go start to dey produce dose commodity wey im go fit produce with profit unda some kind  state affairs. Wetin go affect im short-run interest for good or bad way na changes wey go happen for de institutional setting. But dose kind changes nor dey affect de various branches of business and various enterprises de same way and to de same extent. One way fit benefit one branch or enterprise but  spoil things for anoda branch or enterprise. Wetin business man dey hold hand na just few custom item dem. And as e regard dis item de interest of various branches and firms dem na to end am.
 
-The first error in this interpretation is that it considers the "bourgeoisie" as a homogeneous class composed of members whose interests are identical. A businessman is always under the necessity of adjusting the conduct of his business to the institutional conditions of his country. In the long run he is, in his capacity as entrepreneur and capitalist, neither favored nor injured by tariffs or the absence of tariffs. He will turn to the production of those commodities which under the given state of affairs he can most profitably produce. What may hurt or further his short-run interests are only *changes* in the institutional setting. But such changes do not affect the various branches of business and the various enterprises in the same way and to the same extent. A measure that benefits one branch or enterprise may be detrimental to other branches or enterprises. What counts for a businessman is only a limited number of customs items. And with regard to these items the interests of various branches and firms are mostly antagonistic.
+Na all kind of privilege from government wey go fit favour de interest of every branch. But if na de same privilege wey oda firms receive, every business man nor go only lose--as consumer wey dem be but also as buyer of raw materials, half-finished products, machines and oda equipment--for de one hand just as im profit for de oda hand. Selfish group interest go fit make man to ask for protection for im own branch or firm. Dem nor go motivate am to ask for universal protection for all branches or firm dem if im nor sure say im protection go tight pass oda industries or enterprise dia own.
 
-The interests of every branch or firm can be favored by all kinds of privileges granted to it by the government. But if privileges are granted to the same extent also to the other branches and firms, every businessman loses--not only in his capacity as consumer, but also in his capacity as buyer of raw materials, half-finished products, machines and other equipment--on the one hand as much as he profits on the other. Selfish group interests may impel a man to ask for protection for his own branch or firm. They can never motivate him to ask for universal protection for all branches or firms if he is not sure to be protected to a greater extent than the other industries or enterprises.
+Nor be say British manufacturers sef from how dia class see am been  get interest for de removal of de Corn Laws pass oda British citizen dem. De landowner dem nor agree as dem remove dis law dem cos if dem lower de price of agricultural products e go make rent for land to drop. One special class interest wey de manufacturers get go fit only make sense on top de mata of de tay tay iron law of wages wey dem been remove and de complete  untenable doctrine wey  say profit na outcome of de exploitation of de workers.
 
-Neither were the British manufacturers from the point of view of their class concerns more interested in the abolition of the Corn Laws than other British citizens. The landowners were opposed to the repeal of these laws because a lowering of the prices for agricultural products reduced the rent of land. A special class interest of the manufacturers can only be construed on the basis of the long since discarded iron law of wages and the no less untenable doctrine that profits are an outcome of the exploitation of the workers.
+For inside world wey dey organised unda de  basis of division of labor, all change must to affect de short-run interest of many groups one way or anoda.It is therefore always easy to expose every doctrine supporting an alteration of existing conditions as an "ideological" disguise of the selfish interests of a special group of people. The main occupation of many present-day authors is such unmasking. Marx did not invent this procedure. It was known long before him. Its most curious manifestation was the attempts of some eighteenth-century writers to explain religious creeds as a fraudulent deception on the part of the priests eager to gain power and wealth both for themselves and for their allies, the exploiters. The Marxians endorsed this statement in labeling religion "opium for the masses."[^12] It never occurred to the supporters of such teachings that where there are selfish interests pro there must necessarily be selfish interests contra too. It is by no means a satisfactory explanation of any event that it favored a special class. The question to be answered is why the rest of the population whose interests it injured did not succeed in frustrating the endeavors of those favored by it.
 
 For inside world wey dey organised unda de  basis of division of labor, all change must to affect de short-run interest of many groups one way or anoda. So e dey easy to expose all doctrine wey dey support  make dem change condition wey don dey exist as "Ideological" disguise of de selfish interest of one special group of people. De main work of many authors of nowadays dey show us some truth. Nor be Marx wey invent dis procedure. Dem don know am already before im come. De most curious way wey im show im sef na for de attempt wey some eighteen-century writers been make to explain religious tori as tori wey dey deceive for de part of de priest dem wey want gain power and wealth for dia sef and dia people, dose wey dey exploit oda people. De Marxians stamp dis tori to label religion "opium for de country people." [^12]  de supporters of dis teaching nor know say where selfish interest pro dey selfish interest contra go dey too. E nor get any how wey dis one take be beta explanation of any event say e favour one special class. De question wey dey ground na why de rest of de population wey dis thing injure dia interest nor succeed to wreck de endeavors of dose people wey e favour.