1998 article, originally published in The circulation of capital: essays on volume II of Marx’s ‘Capital’, edited by Christopher Arthur and Geert Reuten, London: Macmillan, pp. 1–16. [The overview of that book’s articles has been omitted.]
(For its abstract see the Abstracts of all chapters on p. 5.)
General note. The essays in that 1998 book were written well before the 2008 MEGA edition of Marx’s 1868–1881 manuscripts for Capital II.
Contents
Preliminary remarks
1 The interconnection of Book I and II of Capital
2 Schematic outline of Capital II
3 German and English editions, the manuscripts and Engels’s editorial work
4 Influence of Capital II
References
Preliminary remarks
To understand how the life and growth of capital related to the exploitation of people was Marx’s aim in his great work, Capital. But for a comprehensive account of the logic of capital’s life process it was necessary to go beyond the dynamic of class struggle at the point of production elucidated in the first volume of the work. Marx discerned three complementary aspects of capital’s movement which he treated in three books: the production of capital (1867); the circulation of capital (1885); and “the process as a whole” (including distribution) (1894).
In 1978, Ernest Mandel introduced a new English translation of the second book, Capital II, referring to it as “the forgotten book” of Capital, while a reviewer of the translation (Tom Kemp) called it “the unknown volume”. This is something of an exaggeration, for it was here, in the final part of this book, that Marx introduced his ‘Schemes of Reproduction’ which influenced both Marxian and orthodox economics in the first decades of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, such debate as has taken place on the book has been mostly restricted to that final part. In any event, it would certainly be right to say that, of the three books of Capital, the second is the least known and has been least studied over the last 50 years. Yet there is much to learn from in doing so.
Here, in a collection of original essays, a group of specialists in the field range over the whole of Capital II, bringing to bear on various of its chapters the latest methodological resources, textual scholarship, scientific criticism and accumulated knowledge of Marxian theory. The result, we hope, will repair the unjustified neglect of Book II in the literature and awaken new interest in it, for our work fills a gap in scholarship, in that there is not a single volume on Capital II. Furthermore, even the existing textbooks and commentaries on Marx’s economics as a whole limit the amount of space given to it compared with the first and last books.
This collection of articles, the only book so far specifically devoted to considering problems in Book II of Capital, is especially thorough on the methodological aspects of that work. However, it is not a textbook as such, working through the whole of Marx’s argument from beginning to end, but a sequence of essays ‘at the frontier’, with individual authors selecting what seemed to them the most interesting issue to address, although every part of the text is treated by one or other contributor, and the articles are in that way beautifully complementary.
The first versions of the articles were discussed at the International Symposium on Marxian Theory V, a six-day working conference devoted to Capital II, held at Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts) in 1995. Subsequent revisions are the result of it.1 We provide in the following sections a general introduction to Capital II (which naturally reveals our own view on matters at issue in Marxian theory). Next, we give some information on the manuscripts and editions of Book II. Then we comment briefly on its reception in various traditions of economic thought. Finally, we preview the articles presented here [omitted in the current book].
1 The interconnection of Book I and II of Capital
Even if we neglect Marx’s Theories of surplus-value (which some consider the fourth Book of Capital) the (remaining) three books cover some 2,200 pages, which implies a demanding architectonic. The outward systematic is in its books, next parts and then chapters. The main inward systematic is organised in the books and their parts rather than the chapters. As it happens, Books I–III now coincide with the published Volumes I–III, even if Marx himself at various points in time had different expectations on this matter. (More on this below: note that, while in this chapter we consistently use ‘book’ instead of ‘volume’, some authors prefer the latter term or like to use the terms interchangeably; indeed, except when studying the ‘making’ of Capital, the terms can be used interchangeably, but it is important to understand that, when Marx in his correspondence refers to what will be in ‘Volume 2’, this does not refer to ‘Volume 2’ as given to us by Engels but to Engels’s Volumes 2 and 3.)
The title of Book Il, “The process of circulation of capital”, is clearly intended to be complementary to that of Book I, “The process of production of capital”. These titles indeed represent the subject matter. However, since Marx starts Book I with commodities, and over and again returns to what “appears as” capitalism’s “elementary form”, the subject matter is easily misunderstood. (See Chapter 3 by Murray.) Nothing could be more wrong than to think that Book I is about the production of commodities, and Book II about their circulation. This is not so at all. The subject matter throughout is clearly signalled by Marx to be capital; this is what is produced, circulated and distributed. The circulation of commodities is thus incorporated within the circulation of capital, just as the production of commodities is studied in relation to the production and reproduction of capital.
Book I gives a thorough analysis of simple commodity circulation before it turns to capitalist production of these commodities. Only at the end of Part Two of this Book do we “leave this noisy sphere, where everything takes place on the surface and in full view”, to enter “the hidden abode of production”. Here we see “not only how capital produces but how capital itself is produced” (Marx 18671, 18904, pp. 279–80). It was necessary to follow this sequence for production of capital is necessarily production of value, a form originally constituted in exchange:
To develop the concept of capital it is necessary to begin not with labour but with value, and, precisely, with exchange value in an already developed movement of circulation. It is … impossible to make the transition directly from labour to capital. (Marx 1953, p. 259)2
Equally Book II is not about such circulation of commodities as distinct from their production; rather it is about the social circulation of capital; as such this circulation includes the time spent in the production process, already partially analysed in Book 1. Book II (Part One), under the headings of the three interconnected circuits of money capital, productive capital and commodity capital, reconceptualises the circulation process from Book I, only now as thoroughly transformed from a ‘shallow’ perspective which understands it to be about commodities simply to a ‘deeper’ view which reconceptualises it as the bearer of the part of the capital circuit, whose movement subsumes that of money and commodities under the drive for valorisation. (Cf. Murray 1998 and Arthur 1998.)
All the attention in Book I was on the significance of production for capital’s valorisation: that is for value augmentation geared to the growth of capital: accumulation. Even if this analysis of capitalist production already stamps Marx’s critique of classical political economy (cf. Mattick 1998) – classical political economy neglected the capitalist form of production, as does neoclassical economics today – Marx shows the insufficiency of just remaining at that level of analysis. Thus he takes on the investigation of production and capital’s valorisation in the perspective of the circulation of capital.
Although Book II embodies the requirement for such a transition from Book I, we are rather short of methodological statements by Marx on it. It is worth quoting a relevant passage at the end of the first edition of Capital I, dropped in subsequent editions.3 In this passage Marx gives a final numerical example of the production of surplus-value (in iron-smelting) and then concludes:
Sold by the capitalist at its value, the iron realizes a surplus-value of £1000, corresponding to the unpaid labour materialized in the value of the iron. But for this to come about the iron must be marketed. The immediate result of capitalist production is the commodity … pregnant with surplus-value. We are thus thrown back on our point of departure, the commodity, and with it to the sphere of circulation. What we have to deal with in the following book, however, is no longer simple commodity circulation, but the circulation process of capital. (Marx 18671, 1st edn., p. 619)
This is because we now have to deal with the circulation, not of commodities as uncomprehended givens, but of commodities “pregnant with surplus-value”, that is, products of capital, and therefore shapes of capital’s reproduction.
Of course, right from the start of Book I, Marx presupposes what he will later prove: that there is no such thing as generalised circulation of commodities as a free-standing phenomenon; rather generalised commodity circulation presupposes capitalist production and hence is determined as an aspect of the circulation of capital (Marx 1885, p. 117). In Book II, however, Marx is not dealing, as he was at the start of Book I, with the circulation of money and commodities as surface phenomena, but as forms of capital’s self-positing movement: for capital to be what it is, for it to exist and survive, it has to go through the phases, the metamorphoses, of being money capital, of being capital in production, of being commodity capital and recycling the movement over again. So in Book II Marx is in a way running over the Book I ground at a more comprehensive, that is concrete, level of conceptualisation (just as Hegel often represents material in his dialectical expositions at more concrete levels). Hence in Book II such matters as ‘turnover time’ obviously require discussion of time in production along with time spent on the market.
In sum, when Marx entitles Book II “The process of circulation of capital” this does not refer to circulation in its narrow sense, in which it is contrasted with the production process, it refers rather to the whole process of capital’s movement through such phases. In the last Part of the book this becomes a study of the revolutions of the entire social capital, articulated through interchanges between its key particularisations.
In the jargon of modern orthodox economics, by this Marx apparently takes the analysis into ‘macroeconomics’. Indeed he does so, and Marx may therefore be considered a founder of a particular macroeconomics (cf. Reuten 1998). Nevertheless to see merely that would be to miss important conceptual differences between Marx and modern orthodox economics, for much of Capital II, especially Part Two on the turnover of capital, would nowadays be classified as business economics. And to further complicate the comparison, much of that same part – together with the other two – would nowadays be classified as monetary economics (cf. Campbell 1998). Leaving aside what analysis Book I exactly presents (in orthodox jargon it is a blend of social economics, microeconomics and business economics) the Book II ‘macroeconomics’ incorporates and surpasses it. All this, of course, makes Book II into a fruitful source of theoretical inspiration along paths barely explored. At the same time problems of incommensurability between Marxian and orthodox economics are revealed. (The incommensurability is highlighted if we consider the orthodox search for micro-foundations of macroeconomics: in the Marxian case – dialectical interpretations of Marx especially would emphasise this – the Book II ‘macro’ analysis rather provides the foundation for Book I!)
While both books posit that capital’s production and circulation are inseparable, the emphasis is certainly different in the two books. A lot of things ‘set at zero’ in Book I are indeed to do with markets (for example, sale is assumed to be no problem) and are addressed in Book II (notably the problem of exchange between ‘departments’ producing means of production and ‘departments’ producing means of consumption). Conversely the second book holds at zero many of the problems of production such as the struggle over wages and the working day.
In Book I, Marx considered the “immediate production process of capital” as a unity of the labour process and the valorisation process, the result being not merely a product but a commodity containing surplus-value.4 Therewith the production process constitutes a process of production and accumulation of capital itself, subject to the realisation of this surplus-value.5 Marx assumed in this book that there was no problem about it, that the capitalist was able to sell the product at its value and that he found in the market material means of production needed to continue production. The formal and material changes undergone by capital in the sphere of circulation distinct from the immediate production process were not examined, the only act of circulation dwelt on in Book I being the purchase and sale of labour-power as the basic premise of capitalist production.
However, the immediate production process has to be understood as located within the circuit of industrial capital as a whole. Whereas in Book I the argument went from exchange down to production and back to circulation, as a result of just that discussion we grasp capital “as this unity-in-process of production and circulation” (Marx 1953, p. 620). In Book II, Marx studies ‘circulation’ in this totalising sense.
2 Schematic outline of Capital II
Marx’s Capital Book II, “The circulation process of capital”, is divided into three main parts. In Part One, Marx considers the metamorphoses capital undergoes in its circuit, namely as money capital, production capital and commodity capital. Of course, in normal conditions, this sequence is expanded into a regular imbricated set of sequences such that at any given time a different component of the total capital is present in each form.
In Part Two, Marx examines the circuit as a turnover. He shows how various components of capital (for example, so-called ‘fixed’ and ‘circulating’) complete their circuit at different rates; he argues that the influence of the circuit’s periodicity, and the varying ratios of such components, must affect the annual rate of surplus-value. In both these parts capital as such is treated; but it is not considered as a system of capitals; however, the reproduction of any given capital is necessarily bound up with the reproduction and circulation of the total social capital.
Thus in Part Three, when Marx considers reproduction, he examines the revolution of this totality which necessarily includes not only the intertwining of each individual capital circuit with others but the whole circulation of commodities, those commodities bought by the workers to maintain themselves as well as those means of production capitals sell to each other. On this basis Marx distinguishes two “departments” of production: those producing means of production and those producing means of consumption. This very division, as well as the analysis of the relations between these departments, is one of the enduring achievements of Marx’s work.
The relatively ‘technical’ character of much of Book II misled Engels, for one, into thinking that the argument concerns only relations between capitals; this is a grave mistake, for class relations are integral to capital and thus the matters dealt with here stand in intimate connection with its class basis; for example, capital’s concern with shortening turnover time has consequences for the intensity of labour, and the very choice of criterion for discriminating departments is rooted in the necessary reproduction of class relations (as Mattick 1998 points out).
Even if this Book II study is still one at a relatively abstract level, the phenomenal expressions of the abstract categories developed may be visible to the extent that the concrete is a simple expression of the abstract categories – but not if in this process of concretion the system inverts its fundamental logic in its appearances (for example, in interest or ‘productivity of capital’) or reverses its dynamic (for example, in the case of tendencies and countertendencies). Tony Smith (1998) shows how many of the categories developed in Marx’s Book II indeed find phenomenal expression; hence he can show how much of the Book II analysis can help us in understanding current developments in capitalism such as ‘flexible production’.
3 German and English editions, the manuscripts and Engels’s editorial work
Marx himself managed to publish only the first book of Capital: “The process of production of capital” (18671; 18732). Book II “The Process of Circulation of Capital” appeared posthumously, edited by Friedrich Engels from Marx’s manuscripts, as was the third book (1885 and 1894). A work that is sometimes considered as Book IV, Theories of surplus-value, published in three volumes, was also edited from Marx’s manuscripts, this time by Karl Kautsky (1904/10). An argument for not considering it as Book IV is that the material from which it was drawn is too rudimentary and lacks a concept for its presentation.6
As far as Book II is concerned, the following German and English editions are the most relevant. In German: the first edition by Engels was published in Hamburg in 1885; a second edition by Engels, with minor changes, appeared in 1893; this second edition is the basis for volume 24 of the Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Berlin; the original manuscripts for Book II will shortly be published in the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Berlin and Amsterdam. In English: the first English translation by E. Untermann was published by Kerr & Co, in 1909; it is the basis of subsequent Moscow editions. A new translation by D. Fernbach appeared in 1978 (New York and London). Fernbach’s translation is generally preferable, but it should always be checked against the other. The English Marx Engels collected works will shortly provide a revised version of the old Moscow edition (as its volume 36). But our information is that the changes to the translation will not be as extensive as might be justifiable, although we may expect the provision of useful editorial notes, as in the new edition of Book I published as Volume 35 (1996) of the Collected works.
Marx referred to the three parts of Capital as ‘books’. While Book I appeared on its own in 1867 as ‘Volume One’, Marx at that time intended to publish both subsequent books in one volume. But after Marx’s death in 1883, Engels found so much material to hand for these books that he published them as separate volumes. Thus, as we have already indicated, the upshot is that ‘books’ correspond exactly with ‘volumes’.7
As Engels explains in his preface to the second edition of Capital II, the material from which he reconstructed Book II consists of several drafts attempted by Marx (Notebooks I–VIII, written between 1865 and 1878; however, Engels mainly used the drafts of 1870 (II), 1877 (V) and 1878 (VIII).) It will eventually be possible for all to study what a fist he made of it when the original manuscripts are published in the new MEGA. Thus far only the first full draft dated 1865 (not used by Engels) has appeared. (One aspect of it is treated in Arthur 1998, Appendix B.)
It is worth nothing that Book II comprises Marx’s final thoughts on capital for the various drafts Engels used were composed more than five years after the draft of Book III (1865). It follows that thoughts developed in Book II may well have to be taken into account when evaluating Book III.8
4 Influence of Capital II
Some comments on the influence of Book II on Marxian and orthodox economic theory would be appropriate here. However, as the material for this might cover a chapter or even a full book in itself, we merely provide some references to the literature. As we have already indicated, it was Part Three of the book that had the most impact, whereas the other two parts were rather neglected.9
As to Part Three (on the ‘macroeconomic’ departmental division and reproduction schemes) we may mention four main lines of influence. They all arose in the first decades of the twentieth century. The first author to adopt Marx’s reproduction schemes in his own work back in 1894 was Tugan-Baranowski, and he subsequently influenced orthodox approaches to the business cycle. Within this line we also have the construction of orthodox macroeconomics and growth theory.10 The work of Kalecki deserves special mention, as in many respects his work is within the Marxian tradition: certainly Marx’s reproduction schemes influenced his approach to economics.11 The second line is within Marxian economics where Hilferding and Luxemburg were among the first to adopt the analysis.12 A third, and rather surprising, line is the adoption of the schemes in the USSR economic planning of the 1920s.13 However from this line there is a direct link to the last one, input–output analysis. Leontief, a Soviet emigrant to the USA, founder of this approach within orthodox economics for which he was granted a Nobel Prize, apparently got the idea from his Soviet education.14 (The above is merely a preliminary guide for the interested reader, and the list of references in the notes is not meant to be exhaustive.)
Other papers from the ISMT are collected in Moseley 1993 and Moseley and Campbell 1997; a fourth book is in process. [2023 note: From 1993 to 2014 the group published 11 books on Marx’s Capital – see
This book of Marx, the Grundrisse, written in 1857–58, is a rough draft of Capital in rather dialectical style. It made an impact with the 1953 German publication and again with its much-delayed 1973 English translation.
It was probably dropped for the second edition partly because of its absurdity as a tailpiece to the chapter on colonisation and partly because Marx felt embarrassed that he had not yet produced the promised book on the circulation of capital. Obviously, this paragraph is also a remnant of the famous ‘missing chapter’ on ‘the immediate results of commodity production’ (included as an appendix to the 1976 English translation of Book I – cf. p. 975).
Thus Marx indicates the duality of capitalist production: it is a contradictory process of producing useful objects (labour process) and at the same time of producing value and surplus-value (valorisation process). The latter, however, dominates the former. (See Reuten and Williams 1989, ch. 1; and Murray 1998 pointing out that the ‘real subsumption’ of labour indeed affects the labour process and the kind of commodities being produced).
Moseley (1998) points out that Marx, with his Reproduction Schemes of Part Three, and against Smith’s ‘dogma’ in this respect, shows how the annual production indeed reproduces capital.
See Oakley 1983, pp. 124–5. Up to at least 1877, Marx indeed planned to redraft the latter material for a fourth book: letters to Kugelman, 13 October 1866, to Meyer, 30 April 1867, and to Schott, 3 November 1877.
However, this does not excuse David Fernbach’s altering Engels’s preface to Volume Two without notice by changing the term ‘book’ to ‘volume’ throughout his translation of it. Incidentally, for purely external reasons, part of Engels’s preface to Capital II gives an explanation of the uniqueness of Marx’s theory of surplus-value in which he clarified the point that labour as value-creating activity cannot have a value of its own; only labour-power can. Note that the 1978 English translation by D. Fernbach misses matter in this passage: “labour-power for labour as the value-creating property” (p. 99) should read “labour-power. By substituting labour-power for labour as the value-creating property”.
A concise source in English on the various drafts for Capital is Oakley (1983). Evidently it deserves reconsideration on the basis of the new source material not available to Oakley.
We may mention just one exception: Moggridge (biographer of Keynes and editor of his collected works) indicates that Keynes used Marx’s capital circuit approach in his 1933 lectures. See Moggridge (1976, p. 104); Keynes (CW, XIII, p. 420); cf. CW, XXIX, pp. 81–2, where Keynes writes on the same issue in the preparation of his General Theory.
Domar in his seminal paper (1946), for example, refers to Marx. See further the papers in Horowitz (1968), Mandel (1978), Howard and King (1989), and Kurz (1995).
See Kalecki (1954, ch. 3 and 1968); cf. Sawyer (1985, ch. 8). Incidentally, according to Harcourt (1982, p. 270), Robinson over the years came “to prefer Kalecki’s version of the central propositions of the General Theory to Keynes’s version because they are placed in the context of Marx’s schemes of reproduction and a theory of cyclical growth”. According to her account, Robinson, after reading Volume Two, liked to tease Harrod by telling him that his growth theory was already there, in Marx’s last chapter (Robinson 1953, p. 17).
See Mandel (1978); and Howard and King (1989).
See, for example, Desai (1979, ch. 17).
See Lange (1959, ch. 3); Jasny (1962); Stone and Stone (1977).
References
Note 1: All years in brackets are the original dates of publication as referred to in the text; editions quoted from may differ and are provided where appropriate.
Note 2 of 2023: The introduction above has cross-references to the chapters of the 1998 volume. Its title and the relevant articles are therefore included below.
Arthur, Christopher J. 1998, ‘The fluidity of capital and the logic of the concept’, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 95–128.
Arthur, Christopher J., and Geert Reuten (eds) 1998, The circulation of capital: essays on volume II of Marx’s ‘Capital’, London: Macmillan.
Campbell, Martha 1998, ‘Money in the circulation of capital’, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 129–58.
Desai, Meghnad 1979, Marxian economics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Domar, Evsey D. 1946, ‘Capital expansion, rate of growth and employment’, Econometrica, 14; reprinted in Amartya Sen (ed.), Growth economics, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.
Harcourt, Geoffrey C. 1982, ‘The Sraffian contribution: an evaluation’, in Classical and Marxian political economy, edited by Ian Bradley and Michael Howard, London: Macmillan.
Horowitz, David (ed.) 1968, Marx and modern economics, New York/London: Monthly Review Press.
Howard, Michael C., and Jesse E. King 1989; 1992, A history of Marxian economics, vol. I, 1883–1929, vol. II, 1929–1990, London: Macmillan.
Jasny, Naum 1962, ‘The Soviet balance of national income and the American input-output analysis’, L’industria 1: 51–7.
Kalecki, Michał 1954, Theory of economic dynamics, New York: Augustus Kelley.
Kalecki, Michał 1968, ‘The Marxian equations of reproduction and modern economics’, Social Science Information 7.
Kurz, Heinz D. 1995, ‘Marginalism, classicism and socialism in German-speaking countries 1871–1932’, in Socialism and marginalism in economics 1870–1930, edited by I. Steedman, London: Routledge.
Lange, Oscar 1966 [1959/1962], Introduction to econometrics, 2nd edn, trans. by E. Lepa, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Mandel, Ernest 1978, ‘Introduction’ to Marx 1885, English trans. David Fernbach, pp. 11–79.
Marx, Karl 18671, 18904, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Band I, Der Produktionsprozess der Kapitals; MEW 23; English trans. Ben Fowkes, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume one, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976.
Marx, Karl 1867, 1st edn., Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Erster Band Hamburg 1867, Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung II, Band 5, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1983.
Marx, Karl 18851, 18932, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Band II, Der Zirkulationsprozess des Kapitals, MEW 24, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1972; English trans. Ernest Untermann 1907; David Fernbach, Capital, a critique of political economy, vol. II, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978.
Marx, Karl 1894, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Band III, Der Gesamtprozess der kapitalistischen Produktion, MEW 25, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1972; English trans. Ernest Untermann 1909; David Fernbach, Capital, a critique of political economy, vol. III, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981.
Marx, Karl 1904/10, 1996/62 {written 1861–63} ed. K. Kautsky, Theorien über den Mehrwert (1904/10); 2nd edn (1996/62) by Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus, Theorien über den Mehrwert Teile I, II, III, MEW26.1, 26.2, 26.3, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1965/68 English edn: Theories of surplus-value, part I, ed. S. Ryazanskaya, trans. Emile Bums (1963); Part II, ed. and trans. S. Ryazanskaya (1968); Part III, ed. S. Ryazanskaya and Richard Dixon, trans. Jack Cohen and S. Ryazanskaya (1971), London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Marx, Karl 1953, Grundrisse; foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft) (original German publication 1953), trans. Martin Nicolaus, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.
Mattick Jr., Paul 1998, ‘Economic form and social reproduction: on the place of “book II” in Marx’s critique of political economy’, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 17–32.
Moggridge, Donald E. 1976, Keynes, London: Fontana/Collins.
Moseley, Fred (ed.) 1993, Marx’s method in ‘Capital’: a re-examination, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Moseley, Fred (ed.) 1998, ‘Marx’s reproduction schemes and Smith’s dogma’, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 159–86.
Moseley, Fred, and Martha Campbell (eds) 1997, New investigations of Marx’s method, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Murray, Patrick 1998, ‘Beyond the “commerce and industry” picture of capital’, in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 33–66.
Oakley, Allen 1983, The making of Marx’s critical theory, London: Routledge.
Reuten, Geert 1998, ‘The status of Marx’s reproduction schemes: conventional or dialectical logic?’ in Arthur and Reuten (eds) 1998, pp. 187–229.
Reuten, Geert, and Michael Williams 1989, Value-form and the state; the tendencies of accumulation and the determination of economic policy in capitalist society, London: Routledge.
Robinson, Joan 1953, On re-reading Marx, Cambridge: Students Bookshop Ltd.
Sawyer, Malcolm C. 1985, The economics of Michał Kalecki, London: Macmillan.
Stone, Richard, and Giovanna Stone 1961, 1977, National income and expenditure, 2nd edn, London: Bowes.