书名彻底译错了！

这本书的译名应该是《正面资本论》或《资本正面理论》，译者居然把positive译成实证，真是愧对庞巴维克。参考下面中英对照的引文，第一段摘自译者序，在上下文中，反动负面的理论如何能对应成实证论？

“Lastly, the Socialist or Exploitation theory, which makes interest simply a gain from exploited labour, is shown to be a theory which could only arise on the negative basis of the unsatisfactory accounts hitherto given, and on the positive basis of a mistaken value theory. When an income obtained without work and without risk was claimed as the reward of abstinence, and when all value was ascribed to the action of material labourers, it was inevitable that there should rise a reactionary theory proving that interest was robbery. Thus the board was swept clean for the Positive Theory.

最后，社会主义或剥削的理论一它只把利息看作是从劳动剥削来的所得。他指出的这个理论，只能产生于迄今人们所提出的不能令人满意的说明的消极基础，以及错误的价值理论的积极基础上。如果把一种不劳而获的和不冒风险而取得的收入说成是节制的报酬，如果把一切价值归之于劳动者的活动，不可避免地要产生一种反动的理论，证明利息是掠夺。经过对上述的一些理论的批判，这样就为实证论〔正面理论〕扫清了道路。”

第二段摘自最后总结，庞巴维克直截了当的指出“通过从逻辑上来对价值基本理论进行阐发，我已成功地找到了对利息的解释”，这里明明白白指的是逻辑演绎的方法，而不是实证研究。


“And now to finish. On a former occasion, at the end of the historical part of my work, I laid down the programme for my positive theory in the following words.—"To find for the vexed problem a solution which invents nothing and assumes nothing, but simply and truly attempts to deduce the phenomena of the formation of interest from the simplest natural and psychological principles of our science." I cannot wish more than the recognition that, in the carrying out of the work, I have been true to my programme. For if, through logically developing the elementary theory of value, I have succeeded in obtaining the explanation of interest, it will give the strongest security that could be wished that we are moving on the right lines with two theories, that of value and that of capital.

那末，现在就结束吧。在以往一个场合里，在本书的历史部分末，我曾用以下的词句为我的实证论〔正面理论〕制定了一个纲领－“要为这个恼人的问题，找出一个答案，这个答案即不发明什么，也不假定什么，只真诚地试图根据我们科学的最简单的自然原理和心理原理推究利息形成现象的源流”。我想我必须承认，在执行这项工作中，我一直是忠实于我的纲领的。因为，如果说，通过从逻辑上来对价值基本理论进行阐发，我已成功地找到了对利息的解释，那末，这就非常有力地证明了我们关于两个理论(价值理论和资本理论）的讨论是沿着正确的路线进行的。”


困惑中求教Jeffery Tuck教授如下：
I do have a question regarding Bohm-Bawerk's book,The Positive Theory of Capital, and want to ask your opinion. In early 1960s, Bohm-Bawerk's book was translated into Chinese by a Marxism theorist. He translate positive as positivist in Chinese. As I go through the translation, I found everywhere in the book where it mentioned positive theory, the translation was always "positivist theory". However, when looking at the English translation, it clearly showed positive theory was used as the opposite of negative(exploitation) theory as defined by Karl Marx. I was very confused and want to ask for your clarification. Bohm-Bawerk's The Positive Theory of Capital had nothing to do with Positivist theory, right?

得到回复：“you are absolutely right! ”

后记：Jeffery Tuck在介绍罗斯巴德的新书Economic Controversies时这样写到：

After Murray Rothbard finished his theoretical magnum opus - Man, Economy, and State - he turned his attention away from pure positive theory toward dealing with the opposition to Austrian theory. The result was a long series of fantastic scholarly articles taking on every error of the day, and our day too.

即使在当代英语里，positive theory也不一定就是实证的意思，更别说在庞巴维克的年代了。

当然，瑕不掩瑜的是，本书翻译质量仍属中上，比当今一些粗制滥造之作强多了。推荐给对奥地利学派感兴趣的朋友阅读。