This book provides a wide-ranging and in-depth reappraisal of the relation between Marx’s economic theory in Capital and Hegel’s Logic by leading Marxian economists and philosophers from around the world. The subjects dealt with include: systematic dialectics, the New Dialectics, materialism vs. idealism, Marx’s ‘inversion’ of Hegel, Hegel’s Concept logic (universality-particularity-singularity), Hegel’s Essence logic (essence-appearance), Marx’s levels of abstraction of capital in general and competition, and capital as Hegelian Subject. The papers in this volume were originally presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the International Symposium on Marxian Theory at Mount Holyoke College in August 2011. The twelve authors are divided between seven economists and five philosophers, as is fitting for the interdisciplinary subject of the relation between Marx’s economic theory and Hegel’s logic. Contributors are: Chris Arthur, Riccardo Bellofiore, Roberto Fineschi, Gastón Caligaris, Igor Hanzel, Juan Iñigo Carrera, Mark Meaney, Fred Moseley, Patrick Murray, Geert Reuten, Mario Robles, Tony Smith, and Guido Starosta.

Beginning with "value" and "commodity" at the start of Volume I in Marx's major work, and progressing step-by-step to the end of Volume III, Smith establishes in detail that Capital is a systematic theory of socio-economic categories ordered according to dialectical logic. At each stage in his analysis of the theory Smith makes Marx's arguments more accessible. He also considers in depth the objections to Marx's employment of dialectical logic that have been formulated by Hegelians (especially those presented in Klaus Hartmann's Die Marxsche Theorie). Smith presents a persuasive case against this whole range of Marx criticisms, many of which have also been proposed from non-Hegelian standpoints.

An accessible, rigorous presentation of Marx's argument in the three volumes of Capital and of longstanding debates in Marxist economics.

This book argues that the dialectic of Marx's Capital has a systematic, rather than historical, character. It sheds new light on Marx's great work, while going beyond it in many respects.

Marx’s Capital has of course been widely read; this revival of a systematic study by Geoffrey Pilling, originally published in 1980, argues powerfully that, in order to understand Capital fully, it is necessary to have read and understood Hegel’s Logic. This argument leads to a detailed examination of the opening chapters of Capital, and a re-examination of their significance for the work as a whole. Pilling emphasizes the fundamental nature of the break between Marx’s Capital and all forms of classical political economy, and stresses the revolutionary nature of Marx’s critique of political economy as one of the foundations of Capital. He also lays particular emphasis on the philosophical aspects of the work, so often neglected by British commentators, and puts forward the view that Marx’s notion of fetishism, often looked upon as incidental to his work, is in fact central to his entire critique of political economy.

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.

In Marx ́s Capital, Method and Revolutionary Subjectivity, Guido Starosta develops a materialist inquiry into the social and historical determinations of revolutionary subjectivity. Through a methodologically-minded critical reconstruction of the Marxian critique of political economy, from the early writings up to the Grundrisse and Capital, this study shows that the outcome of the historical movement of the objectified form of social mediation, which has turned into the very alienated subject of social life (i.e., capital), is to develop, as its own immanent determination, the constitution of the (self-abolishing) working class as a revolutionary subject. A crucial element in this intellectual endeavour is the focus on the intrinsic connection between the specifically dialectical form of social science and its radical transformative content.