This ambitious book presents a comprehensive new 'macro-monetary' interpretation of Marx’s logical method in Capital, based on substantial textual evidence, which emphasises two main points: (1) Marx’s theory is primarily a macroeconomic theory of the total surplus-value produced in the economy as a whole; and (2) Marx’s theory is a monetary theory from beginning to end and the circuit of money capital – M - C - M’ – is the logical framework of Marx’s theory. It follows from this 'macro-monetary' interpretation that, contrary to the prevailing view, there is no 'transformation problem' in Marx’s theory; i.e., Marx did not 'fail to transform the inputs of constant capital and variable capital' in his theory of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume III.

Correcting a longstanding misinterpretation, Moseley argues that there is no 'transformation problem' in Marx's economic theory.

This ambitious book presents a comprehensive new 'macro-monetary' interpretation of Marx s logical method in "Capital," based on substantial textual evidence, and concludes that, contrary to the prevailing view, there is no 'transformation problem' in Marx s theory of prices of production in Volume III."

This book examines what we can gain from a critical reading of Marx's final manuscript and his conclusion of the "systematic presentation" of his critique, which was the basis for Engels's construction of the third volume of his infamous 'Capital'. The text introduces the reader to a key problem ́of Marx's largely implicit epistemology, by exploring the systematic character of his exposition and the difference of this kind of 'systematicity' from Hegelian philosophical system construction. The volume contributes to establishing a new understanding of the critique of political economy, as it has been articulated in various debates since the 1960s - especially in France, Germany, and Italy - and as it had already been initiated by Marx and some of his followers, with Rosa Luxemburg in a key role. All the chapters are transdisciplinary in nature, and explore the modern day relevance of Marx's and Luxemburg's theoretical analysis of the dominance of the capitalist mode of production.

Marx’s only full draft of Volume III of Capital was written in the Economic Manuscript of 1864—1865. The Volume III that we know was heavily edited by Engels. It has been a long-standing question in Marxian scholarship whether or not there are significant differences between Marx’s original manuscript and Engels’s edited version. Marx’s manuscript was published for the first time in German in 1992 in the Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe, Section II, Volume 4.2, but this important manuscript has not previously been translated into English. The publication of this English translation of Marx’s original manuscript is thus an important event in Marxian scholarship. English-speaking Marxist scholars can finally compare Engels’s Volume III with Marx’s original manuscript and evaluate for themselves the significance of the differences.

Recent attempts to revitalize Hegel's social and political philosophy have tended to be doubly constrained: firstly, by their focus on Hegel's Philosophy of Right; and secondly, by their broadly liberal interpretive framework. Challenging that trend, Arash Abazari shows that the locus of Hegel's genuine critical social theory is to be sought in his ontology – specifically in the 'logic of essence' of the Science of Logic. Mobilizing ideas from Marx and Adorno, Abazari unveils the hidden critical import of Hegel's logic. He argues that social domination in capitalism obtains by virtue of the illusion of equality and freedom; shows how relations of opposition underlie the seeming pluralism in capitalism; and elaborates on the deepest ground of domination, i.e. the totality of capitalist social relations. Overall, his book demonstrates that Hegel's logic can and should be read politically.

Representing Capital, Fredric Jameson’s first book-length engagement with Marx’s magnum opus, is a unique work of scholarship that records the progression of Marx’s thought as if it were a musical score. The textual landscape that emerges is the setting for paradoxes and contradictions that struggle toward resolution, giving rise to new antinomies and a new forward movement. These immense segments overlap each other to combine and develop on new levels in the same way that capital itself does, stumbling against obstacles that it overcomes by progressive expansions, which are in themselves so many leaps into the unknown.