2002 article, originally published in The culmination of capital: essays on volume III of Marx’s ‘Capital’, edited by Martha Campbell and Geert Reuten, London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–15. The article’s final section 3 (introduction to the essays of the 2002 book) has been omitted.
(For its abstract see the Abstracts of all chapters, p. 7.)
Contents
1 “The shapes of the whole process”: interpretation and reconstruction
2 Capital III in light of the first two volumes
2.1 Levels of abstraction
2.2 From Capital I and II to Capital III
2.3 The seven Parts of Capital III
References
This introductory chapter starts with a brief discussion of why writing about Marx’s Capital III is not only interpretative – this is true for any work – but is also bound to be reconstructive. The next section outlines a general overview of Capital III’s seven Parts in the light of the earlier two volumes.1
1 “The shapes of the whole process”: interpretation and reconstruction
The first volume of Karl Marx’s life work Das Kapital was published in 18671. When Marx died in 1883 at the age of 64, he left Volumes II and III as unfinished manuscripts, which range anywhere from mere notes or outlines to text all but ready for publication. The manuscript for Volume III is a single draft, and, relative to the other volumes, an early one, having been written between 1863 and the end of 1865. It was not until 30 years later, in 1894, that the third volume was published in German; like the second (1885), it was edited by Friedrich Engels. One year after the 1894 publication Engels himself died at the age of 75.2
These few biblio-biographical facts are relevant to the interpretation of Capital since, for Marx, architectonic and Darstellung (presentation) are an essential stage of scientific work. Almost certainly, if Marx had lived long enough to publish Volumes II and III himself, they would have been quite different from the works we now have.3 Most likely also their difference would have led, in turn, to another revision of Volume I (which Marx had already changed between the first edition and the second of 1873).4
The reading of any text, complete or incomplete, of course, involves interpretation – behind the author’s back so to speak. There are, however, three particular reasons to be extra cautious in the case of Marx’s works. First, as Engels says of his editing in his Preface to Capital III:
I confined this simply to what was most necessary, and wherever clarity permitted I retained the character of the original draft, not even deleting certain repetitions where these grasped the subject-matter from a different angle or expressed it in another way, as was Marx’s custom. (Engels 1894F, p. 93, emphasis added)
Such repetitions appear not only in Volume III of Capital but in the earlier volumes as well. Apart from those related to the draft character of the text, they are due to aspects of Marx’s method. In particular, he emphasises throughout the double character of entities in capitalism (material shape and capitalist value-form) and the related differentiation between ‘general’ (transhistorical) and ‘determinate’ (capitalist) categories.5 Further, as Marx’s presentation proceeds, it discloses new features of the entities under consideration, so that these are continually reconceptualised (and ‘redefined’ so to say). Apart from such aspects of method, however, Marx often obviously struggles with the material at hand, either to find the most appropriate way of presenting it, or indeed to present it from different angles because there is more than one appropriate aspect.
Second – and related to the first point – in the view of all the contributors to this [2002] book at least, Marx makes a fundamental break with the political economy and philosophy of his time.6 Without implying that all my co-authors (see note 1) share this view, I also hold that the initiator of a break can never realise it completely. Because initiators are brought up in the tradition from which they break, their work is shaped by the central concerns of that tradition, and they must, to a considerable extent, speak in its language. Especially in the case of Capital III, these central concerns arise, in large part, from Ricardo’s theory.7 It is left to the heirs, setting out from different questions, to unfold all that the break entails – or retreat from it. Hence ‘interpreting’ the work of the initiator of a break is bound to be an unfolding or a retreating reconstruction. It follows also that there may not be full consistency in the initiator’s work. As regards ‘interpretation’ then, it is generally easier to see a particular interpretation confirmed by the texts than to see it not falsified.
In view of the foregoing, the contributors to this book adopt different stances towards the interpretation of Marx. At one end, Tony Smith (2002) holds that any interpretation of Marx’s texts is always a reconstruction. At the other, in Fred Moseley’s view (2002), Marx’s aims are clear enough to allow for an interpretation close to the intention of the author. Others see a need for reconstruction for several reasons: because of defects in, or of, acknowledged, concurrent theoretical lines in Marx’s writing (the presence of different lines is not by itself a problem) and because certain abstract treatments by Marx require further mediation and concretion.
The third reason to be extra cautious in the interpretation of Marx’s work, particularly Capital III, is more straightforward: the text is clearly influenced by Engels’s editing. This should not be read as a criticism of Engels; it is only because of his dedication that Volumes II and III were published at all. As already noted, Capital III was published in 1894, eleven years after Marx’s death and nine years after the publication of Volume II. In its Preface Engels explains why there was such a delay: political activities, other theoretical work, his health; but the main reason appears to have been the state of Marx’s draft for Volume III.8 Given the state of the manuscript, Engels could never have been successful in all respects. For example, one might complain that he should have taken out repetitious parts (which would have implied a choice of emphasis), that he should not have included chapters that obviously were just notes (which might have concealed the intended architectonic) or that he should have been more specific in indicating his own alterations and interpolations (which might have marred the continuity of the text). In any case, it must be recognised that Engels left his mark on the text.9 In his Preface Engels writes: ‘Wherever my alterations or additions are not simply editorial in character … I have put the entire passage in pointed brackets and indicated it with my initials’ (Engels 1894F, p. 93).10 We may grant that this was Engels’s intention but dispute his claim to have observed the limits he set.11
By way of illustration, attention is drawn here just to one point: the subtitle of Volume III. It is notorious that for the English edition of Volume I, Engels changed Marx’s subtitle from The production process of capital to The process of capitalist production. These are, of course, quite different issues.12 In line with his revision of the subtitle of Volume I, Engels imposed on Volume III the subtitle The process of capitalist production as a whole (Der Gesammtprozeß der Kapitalistischen Produktion). Marx’s own title in his draft of Volume III is different; it is “The shapes of the whole Process” (“Die Gestaltungen des Gesammtprozeß”). Marx says in his introduction that this meant the ‘unity’ of the first two books.13 Engels gives credence to his subtitle by inserting (unmarked) the first three sentences of the opening chapter of Volume III.14
This collection of studies [the 2002 book] is based on Marx’s Capital III as edited by Engels. The authors do not take the view that the ‘real’ text (whatever real may mean in this context) is that of Marx’s manuscripts. The manuscript of 1864–65, for example, is a work on its own (as are those of e.g. 1857–58 and 1861–63) and they should be the subject of a study of their own. Nevertheless, although the Capital III text is our platform, some of us, from that platform, further develop Marxian theory in reference to later, e.g. twentieth century, works, while others for their purposes refer back to earlier work of Marx, including the published manuscripts just mentioned.
2 Capital III in light of the first two volumes15
2.1 Levels of abstraction
Descriptions of the interconnection of the three volumes of Capital and relatedly of Marx’s general method are bound to be reconstructive as well as controversial. Among the authors of this book [2002], at least, there is agreement about three interdependent aspects of Marx’s method. First, the dialectic is not unnecessary jargon that could be dispensed with, but key to the understanding of Capital. Nevertheless views differ as to differences between the (systematic) dialectics of Hegel and Marx.16 Second, all authors agree that the movement in Capital is from abstract and simple categories to concrete and complex ones, and is marked by conceptual levels of abstraction/concretion. Nevertheless there are different views about what this implies, especially about whether and how the later more concrete levels modify the earlier and more abstract ones.17 Third, all agree that these levels are marked by the Parts within each of the volumes of Capital, many of which are also conceptual conversions or transformations.18 Nevertheless views may differ as to whether these can be ‘defined’ into each other (as in a linear or formal logic) allowing perhaps also for quantitative ‘translations’ between levels.19
In addition, all the authors [see note 1] emphasise – although with different accentuations – that the monetary value-form is key to the understanding of Capital. These general agreements, it should be noted, differentiate the current work from what may be considered its complement: the collection of articles edited by Bellofiore (1998a; 1998b).20
2.2 From Capital I and II to Capital III
Marx’s Capital is an exposition of the logic of capital – its production and reproduction. The work describes the object of enquiry from within, developing the object’s own standards and processes to its logical conclusions, and thus assessing the object internally. In Capital I, after having established the capitalist social form – the value-form, and its expression in money and capital itself – capital’s need for labour for the production of value and surplus-value is developed in extenso. Capital’s need can be fulfilled because of its social dominance over labour – dominance, since capital is also the social materialisation of property in the means of production. For this reason, capital can impose its form on society. Therefore also we have the social production of capital. The German subtitle of Volume I brings out this double meaning very well: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals, where des means both the process of production ‘of’ and ‘by’ capital, i.e., need and dominance.
Having established this in Volume I, capital can move on, so to say, to its own workings in Volume II and III (in jargon: its own business). Labour moves to the background. It literally scarcely makes an appearance, except for a few instances such as in the circuit of capital, where labour occurs as only a formal element (Vol. II, Part One), or the social reproduction of capital where labour appears merely in its function of buying part of the consumer goods produced (Vol. II, Part Three).21
Consequently, whenever Marx discusses aspects of crisis and the cycle of production in Capital II and III, it is no longer in terms of a shortage or abundance of labour as in Volume I.22 Rather it is from the standpoint of the dominance of capital: in terms of its movement from slack to overproduction – predicated on the movement of production of surplus-value in relation to capital investment (Vol. II, Part Three; Vol. III, Part Three); or even more sublimated, in terms of the shortage or abundance of money capital – seemingly disconnected from production (Vol. III, Part Five).
2.3 The seven Parts of Capital III
The first three Parts of Capital III, 15 chapters in all, are on aspects of the rate of profit of ‘capital in general’.23 From the concepts of surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value – treated at length in the first volume – Marx develops in Part One the core concepts of profit and the rate of profit. They are effects or results of the whole process at any point in time – and as such the concentration of many determinants – but simultaneously they are decisive or causative for the reproduction of capital; they are capital’s continuity measures. “The rate of profit is the motive power of capitalist production, and nothing is produced save what can be produced at a profit.”24
Part Two shows one side of the dynamics of this continuity, that is, how the competition between capitals for the highest rate of profit, results in an averaging out of the rate of profit. The flow of capital from branches producing at a relatively lower profit rate, to branches producing at a higher, thus results tendentially in the establishment of a general rate of profit, which, as before, is both effect and cause. Along the way it is shown how the concept of price, as developed in Volume I, gets modified.
Thus we see, first, how the oneness of the capitalist social form, that is the oneness, or one-dimensionality, of the value-form as expressed in prices (established in Volume I), brings forth a common measure, or scale, for capitalist success: the rate of profit, which is money over money. Next we see how this measure – generalising prices into prices of production, that is prices formed in terms of the rate of profit – tendentially brings forth a common quantity on this scale.
Whereas Part Two sets out, so to speak, the synchronic dynamics of capitalist continuity – although this is a synchronic process in time – Part Three presents the diachronic dynamics of continuity, that is the development of the general rate of profit itself. Thus within the synchronic tendency to the formation of a general rate of profit, that rate itself changes diachronically – and again we have a further determining moment of the production of surplus-value.
This diachronic dynamic is the culmination of Marx’s architectonic of ‘capital in general. Its basis is the profit-enforced introduction of cost-reducing techniques of production, which are reflected in a rising organic composition of capital, and which generate rate of profit increases to the initiating capital but simultaneously operate as a drain on the average rate of profit. With this capital goes through treadmill-like cyclical movements in which valorisation of capital gets expressed in devalorisation, and accumulation of capital in devaluation.
Up to this point capital was presented as an organic unity: (1) of capitals in synchronic concurrence (competition) for profit (Part One);25 (2) synchronically establishing their general rate of profit (Part Two).26 This has been based on (reading backwards through Capital) the presentation of capital (3) as synchronically connected in its material constituents, that is, the means of production and means of consumption both in their material character and as values (Vol. II, Part Three); (4) as synchronising its diachronic movement so as to trim the time that capital is tied up in the phases of its circuit (Vol. II, Part Two); (5) diachronically moving through the stages by which it is posited and reposited as capital, from the money form of capital (M), to its commodity form (C), to its valorising productive form (P), to an ideally valorised new-commodity form (C') and back to the valorised money form (M'), that is, in
M–C … P … C'–M'
or from any other point of departure, constituting the circuit of capital (Vol. II, Part One). (6) Nevertheless, capital is an organic unity that has only apparent self-subsistence. To be more than a formal ‘organic’ unity it needs the other of and for itself, that is the subsumption of labour as its valorising foundation so as to exist and generate fruit (Vol. I).27
At the level of capital in general all this culminates in the forces raising the value productivity of labour by revolutionising the ‘technical’ constituents of the labour process. The concomitant accelerating valorisation for the revolutionising ‘echelons’ of capital goes along with devalorisation and devaluation of capital as a whole, giving rise to crises and cycles in accumulation (Part Three).
Even if capitals are invested in different branches of production, and competing, they are all alike up to this point in Marx’s presentation in that they go through the same process of valorisation and its cycle. In Parts Four to Six this unity seems to fall apart: capital in general separates into functionally different factions of capital. In Part Four capital divides into Industrial Capital, Commercial Capital and Money-dealing Capital. Though functionally different they are still alike in that they all equally share, tendentially, in the one for all general rate of profit. Note also that in hindsight this division is implicit in the ‘synchronising diachronic’ of the second part of Capital II.
The rigorous split seems to occur in Part Five when Marx, via a number of intermediate steps, develops what now is called Finance Capital. This he initially counterposes to the management of functioning capital. At this stage of the analysis these factions are in conflict and it is their relative power (as well as the stage of the cycle) that decides their shares in the general rate of profit. With Marx’s ‘presentation’ of share capital, however, the counterposition seems to supersede into the dominance of Finance Capital.28 Thus we see capital ‘actually’ developed into (M) → (M +
One might wonder what, qua presentation equally underdeveloped, Part Six on land and ground rent should add to this. From one point of view Marx ‘merely’ treats an important phenomenal shape of his time. There are, however, two other reasons – not particularly emphasised by Marx – why this part deserves to be placed at the very end. The first reason is in line with the general argument of Capital: ‘even’ nature must take on the form of value, and in so far as it can be appropriated it can be capitalised. (The ‘even’ needs qualification, of course, as, already, even labour-power and its labour have taken on the form of value.) The second reason apparently tempers the ‘conclusion’ of the previous part, of capital developing into itself: capital can mould nature – and labour – but it is ultimately limited by them. Capital cannot reproduce land or nature. Marx does not emphasise this particular point explicitly, but uses it to develop the category of monopoly and monopoly profits generally. The category of monopoly may be seen as positing capital’s mirror for the capital-form of the monopoly over the means of production generally.
The last part, Part Seven, consists of five relatively short and diverse chapters that cap off Volume III’s presentation of the shapes of capital and of its valorisation (interest, profit of enterprise, and rent). In addition, they emphasise Marx’s fundamental point that capitalism is a historically specific and mutable mode of production that conceals its class structure. These chapters might be considered as outlines for setting out the concrete manifestations of the whole.
The following authors contributed to the 2002 book: Christopher Arthur, Riccardo Bellofiore, Martha Campbell, Paul Mattick Jr., Fred Moseley, Patrick Murray, Geert Reuten and Tony Smith. Initial versions of the papers were discussed at a week-long working conference at the University of Amsterdam in July 2000. (The authors are part of the International Symposium on Marxian Theory, see
Regarding the current German and English editions of the book, a transcription of the Volume III manuscripts, from which Engels did his editorial work, was published in 1992 in the Marx–Engels Gesamtausgabe (Marx 1894M). The widely used German text identical to Engels’s edition of 1894 is published in the Marx–Engels Werke (Marx 1894G). The first English translation, by Ernest Untermann, appeared in 1909; a current edition based on it is published by Lawrence & Wishart/Progress Publishers (Marx 1894U). It is also available on disc (Marx 1894D) with full search possibilities, although with different page numbers. A second English translation, by David Fernbach, was published in 1981 (Marx 1894F). It is currently more widely used than the former, which does not imply that the translation is always superior – translation necessarily implies interpretation.
That is, if he had lived long enough, and also had enough energy. Marx’s last work on Capital, which is a draft for the third part of Volume II, probably dates from 1878 (see Oakley 1983, pp. 101–3). After that time his faculties for creative scientific work gradually faded away.
Engels remarks in his Preface to the third edition that Marx indeed intended ‘to rewrite a great part of the text of the first volume’.
See Murray (1988) on general versus determinate categories; see also his 2002. Mészáros (1970, p. 79) calls these first order versus second order mediations (cf. Arthur 1986, pp. 11–12).
‘Break’ in the fundamental sense of epistemological rupture (césure).
This necessary double-mindedness can be detected in both the most heatedly discussed parts of the book, especially the value to price transformation and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and those that have attracted less attention, e.g. on rent. See also, concerning especially Marx’s theory of value, Reuten 1993; 2000. [Chapters 6 and 5 of the current book.]
Deciphering Marx’s handwriting, apparently, was only a minor problem, although, Engels tells us, before he could work on it, he first had to dictate the entire manuscript – note that the book in its final shape contains some 900 printed pages.
For a fuller discussion see Vollgraf and Jungnickel (1944), Vygodskij (1995) and Heinrich (1996). See also Arthur (1996) as well as Oakley (1983, pp. 125–6).
Fernbach, in his English translation for the Pelican edition, adds here the misleading footnote (which does not appear in the German edition or the Untermann translation): “In the present edition, all Engels’s substantial interpolations in the main body of the text are placed simply in parentheses and followed by initials” (p. 93). “All” creates the impression of an extra check, which obviously is not the case.
See, for example, the discussion of the text of Part Three (Reuten 2002) [Chapter 21 of the current book.]
It should be noted, however, that this alteration is given some justification by the French edition of 1872, which Marx authorised.
This formulation, in fact, goes back to the 1861–63 draft (MECW 33, p. 69). At that time the main title was still to be “Capital and Profit”.
More accurately the first three and a half sentences of the chapter (i.e., down to “production process” in the fourth sentence). Cf. Collected Works (MECW) Vol. 37: 3, 30 and Marx–Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) Vol II. 4.2: 7. (Thanks to Chris Arthur for pointing this out.)
In this section I provide a brief overview of Capital III in relation to Volumes I and II. Although I try not to impose too forcefully my own opinions about the work as a whole, this account reflects my own views and not those of all my co-authors.
These differences and systematic dialectics itself are not spelled out much in the current book [2002]. See the essays by the same authors in Moseley (ed. 1993) and Moseley and Campbell (eds 1997) and Bellofiore and Finelli (1998). Earlier works are Arthur (1986), Murray (1988), Reuten and Williams (1989) and Smith (1990; 1993). See also the more recent Arthur (1998; 2000), Murray (2000a; 2000b), Reuten (1998; 2000) and Smith (1999). Note that in Paul Mattick’s view Marx’s break with Hegel is such that the term ‘systematic dialectic’ is not appropriate (see Mattick 1986; 1993).
Engels says, in his Preface to the English edition of 1886, that Capital I is “in a great measure a whole in itself”. If “in itself” is, dialectically, meant as “implicitly” this is fine. As such, however, it is insufficient. When we still lack essential determinations (such as the rate of profit at the level of Capital I) because they have not yet been shown to exist, we lack essential understanding of the whole. In the end the comprehension of the concrete, when that state has been reached, informs the abstract.
The last Part of Capital I, in particular, seems to be an exception – it is pretty clearly a digression from the systematic ordering (see Smith 1990 on the explanation for this exception).
In this book Moseley (2002) argues that this can be done.
An earlier collection on Volume III is edited by Eberle (1973) – its main focus is ‘the’ transformation problem.
See the papers in Arthur and Reuten (eds 1998).
I say aspects of crisis and the cycle of production because for Marx a systematic treatment of these goes beyond the three volumes (see e.g. 1894U, p. 358).
This concept of ‘capital in general’ is expanded upon by Chris Arthur (2002a). In an alternative usage of the term, we leave ‘capital in general’ behind – and go to the level of ‘many capitals’ – as soon as we take into account differences among sectors in organic composition and turnover times of capital.
Marx 1894M, p. 333; 1894U, p. 259; 1894F, p. 368 (translation amended).
‘Competition’ and ‘concurrence’ meaning a joint operation, which is the etymological root of both.
Again, these synchronies are dynamic synchronical processes in time. Synchronics and diachronics are thus a matter of emphasis.
On the concept of subsumption in Capital, see Murray 1998 and 2000b.
This description is, I believe, fair to Marx but a very idealised one. First, it requires a regrouping of the order of the chapters; second, the state of the manuscript at times does not even reach the status of an analysis, let alone the systematic required for dialectical presentation. (See further Campbell 2002 and Reuten 2002.)
There is also an English translation of the 3rd edition (by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, first published in 1887).
References
Note 1. Superscripts indicate first and other relevant editions; unless otherwise indicated the last mentioned year in the bibliography is the edition cited.
Note 2 of 2023: The introduction above has cross-references to the chapters of the 2002 volume. Its title and the respective articles are therefore included below.
Arthur, Christopher J. 1986, Dialectics of labour: Marx and his relation to Hegel, Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell.
Arthur, Christopher J. 1996, ‘Engels as interpreter of Marx’s economics’, in Engels today: a centenary appreciation, edited by C.J. Arthur, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Arthur, Christopher J. 1998, ‘Systematic dialectic’, Science & Society 62(3): 447–59.
Arthur, Christopher J. 2000, ‘From the critique of Hegel to the critique of capital’, in The Hegel–Marx connection, edited by T. Burns and I. Fraser, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 105–30.
Arthur, Christopher J. 2001, ‘The spectral ontology of value’, Radical Philosophy 107: 32–42; reprinted in Andrew Brown, Steve Fleetwood and John Roberts (eds), Critical realism and Marxism, London/New York: Routledge.
Arthur, Christopher J. 2002a, ‘Capital in general and Marx’s Capital’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 42–64.
Arthur, Christopher J., and Geert Reuten (eds) 1998, The circulation of capital: essays on volume II of Marx’s ‘Capital’, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Bellofiore, Riccardo (ed.) 1998a, Marxian economics: a reappraisal (volume 1), London/New York: Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press.
Bellofiore, Riccardo (ed.) 1998b, Marxian economics: a reappraisal (volume 2), London/New York: Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press.
Bellofiore, Riccardo, and Roberto Finelli 1998, ‘Capital, labour and time: the Marxian monetary labour theory of value as a theory of exploitation’, in Bellofiore (ed.) 1998a, pp. 48–74.
Campbell, Martha 2002, ‘The credit system’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 212–27.
Campbell, Martha, and Geert Reuten (eds) 2002, The culmination of capital: essays on volume III of Marx’s ‘Capital’, London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eberle, Friedrich (ed.) 1973, Aspekte der Marxschen Theorie I; Zur methodischen Bedeutung des 3. Bandes des ‘Kapital’, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Engels, Frederick 1894F, ‘Preface to Capital III’ (see Marx 1894F).
Heinrich, Michael 1996, ‘Engels’ edition of the third volume of Capital and Marx’s original manuscript’, Science & Society 60(4): 452–66.
Marx, Karl 18671; 18904, Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Band I, Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals (MEW 23); English transl. of the 4th edition by Ben Fowkes, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume I, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976.29
Marx, Karl 18851, 18932, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital, Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Band II, Der Zirkulationsprozeß des Kapitals (MEW 24), English trans. (Ernest Untermann 19071), David Fernbach, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume II, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978.
Marx, Karl 1894 G, ed. F. Engels, Das Kapital; Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, Band III, Der Gesamtprozeß der kapitalistischen Produktion (MEW 25), Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1972.
Marx, Karl 1894U, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume III, The process of capitalist production as a whole, trans. of 1894G (Ernest Untermann, 19091), London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1974.
Marx, Karl 1894F, Capital, a critique of political economy, volume III, trans. of 1894G (David Fernbach, 1981 1), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981.
Marx, Karl 1894M, Ökonomische Manuscripte 1863–1867 [Transcription of manuscript for Das Kapital III, 1894G], eds M. Müller, J. Jungnickel, B. Lietz, C. Sander and A. Schnickmann, MEGA, Vol. II. 4.2 (1992).
Marx, Karl 1894D, Capital III [Disc version of 1894U], K. Marx and F. Engels, Classics in Politics, London: The Electronic Book Company [ElecBook].
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels, Collected works (MECW), London/New York/Moscow: Lawrence & Wishart/International Publishers/Progress Publishers.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, Marx–Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Berlin/Amsterdam: Dietz Verlag/Internationales Institut für Sozialgeschichte Amsterdam.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, Werke (MEW), Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Mattick Jr., Paul 1986, Social knowledge: an essay on the nature and limits of social science, London: Hutchinson.
Mattick Jr., Paul 1993, ‘Marx’s dialectic’, in Moseley (ed.) 1993, pp. 115–34.
Mészáros, István 1970, Marx’s theory of alienation, London: Merlin.
Moseley, Fred (ed.) 1993, Marx’s method in ‘Capital’: A Re-examination, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Moseley, Fred 2002, ‘Hostile brothers: Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus-value in volume III of Capital’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 65–101.
Moseley, Fred, and Martha Campbell (eds) 1997, New investigations of Marx’s method, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Murray, Patrick 1988, Marx’s theory of scientific knowledge, 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.
Murray, Patrick 2000a, ‘Marx’s “truly social” labour theory of value: abstract labour in Marxian value theory, part I’, Historical Materialism 6 (Summer 2000): 27–65.
Murray, Patrick 2000b, ‘Marx’s “truly social” labour theory of value: abstract labour in Marxian value theory, part II’, Historical Materialism 7 (Winter 2000): 99–136.
Murray, Patrick 2002, ‘The illusion of the economic: the trinity formula and the “religion of everyday life”’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 246–72.
Oakley, Allen 1983, The making of Marx’s critical theory: a bibliographical analysis, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Reuten, Geert 1993, ‘The difficult labour of a theory of social value: metaphors and systematic dialectics at the beginning of Marx’s “Capital”’, in Moseley (ed.) 1993, pp. 89–113.
Reuten, Geert 1998, ‘Marx’s method’, in The handbook of economic methodology, edited by J. Davis, W. Hands and U. Mäki, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 283–7.
Reuten, Geert 2000, ‘The interconnection of systematic dialectics and historical materialism’, Historical Materialism 7 (Winter 2000): 137–65.
Reuten, Geert 2002, ‘The rate of profit cycle and the opposition between managerial and finance capital: a discussion of Capital III, parts Three to Five’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 174–211.
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/New York: Routledge.
Smith, Tony 1990, The logic of Marx’s Capital: replies to Hegelian criticisms, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Smith, Tony 1993, Dialectical social theory and its critics: from Hegel to analytical Marxism and postmodernism, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Smith, Tony 1999, ‘The relevance of systematic dialectics to Marxian thought: a reply to Rosenthal’, Historical Materialism 4: 215–40.
Smith, Tony 2002, ‘Surplus profits from innovation: a missing level in Capital III?’, in Campbell and Reuten (eds) 2002, pp. 149–73.
Vollgraf, Carl-Erich, and Jürgen Jungnickel 1994, ‘Marx in Marx’s Worten? – Zu Engels’ Edition des Hauptmanuskripts zum dritten Buch des Kapital’, MEGA-Studien 2: 3–55.
Vygodskij, Vitalij 1995, ‘Was hat Engels in den Jahren 1885 und 1894 eigentlich veröffentlicht? – Zu dem Artikel von Carl-Erich Vollgraf und Jürgen Jungnickel „Marx in Marx’s Worten?“’, MEGA-Studien 1: 117–20.