On the genesis of Marx's capital

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title page of Volume I (3rd edition)

A detailed commentary by the Marxist economist Roman Rosdolsky on the Grundrisse of the Critique of Political Economy , a manuscript written by Karl Marx , which was first published in 1939–1941, is on the history of the origins of Marx's Capital . Rosdolsky dedicated the book, which was only published after his death in 1968, to his "dear wife and like-minded woman" Emily Rosdolsky and is currently being reissued by ça ira-Verlag.

Title page of Volume II (3rd edition)

In contrast to Louis Althusser's structuralist interpretation, for Rosdolsky the Grundrisse demonstrate the methodological importance of dialectics for Das Kapital . He therefore formulates the desideratum to analyze them thoroughly. With this work, Rosdolsky also laid the foundation for value criticism .

Title page of Volume III (2nd edition)

Goal setting

Rosdolsky was the first to work intensively on the floor plans . He worked on it from autumn 1948 to December 1955. The final version of his foreword is dated March 1967. Until his death in October 1967 he tried unsuccessfully to get it published. His expectation that “the general level of economic Marx literature could only be raised” by the Grundrisse was too optimistic. Since their publication in 1941, only two works have been recorded that have given them special importance.

When Rosdolsky held one of the then still rare copies of the floor plans in his hands, he had planned two things: On the one hand, he planned to write an understandable commentary on the difficult-to-read manuscript, if possible using Marx's own words. On the other hand, he wanted to further evaluate the newly developed text source for science.

content

Rosdolsky's work is divided into seven parts. The commentary on the floor plans includes parts 2 to 6 (from Chapter 4 to Chapter 29). Here Rosdolsky deals with Marx's theory in the order in which it is presented in Capital . Parts 1 (1st to 3rd chapters) and 7 (30th to 34th chapters) are devoted by Rosdolsky to his second task, namely to further examine the economic problems raised by Marx.

The question of Marx's methodology has been criminally neglected, especially with regard to his critical reception of Hegel's dialectic . What is important here is the construction plan that Marx had based his “Critique of Political Economy” on. In his preface, Rosdolsky already emphasized how important Hegel's science of logic was for understanding the ground plans , which, unfortunately, was forgotten even by Marxists:

“This relation was quite clear to the philosophically educated contemporaries of Marx. Lassalle compared Marx's work On Criticism with Hegel's ' Phenomenology ' and praised Marx as a Ricardo who has become a socialist , and Hegel who has become an economist. "

When Rosdolsky calls dialectics the soul of capital , he can refer to Lenin and Georg Lukács . If he derives the categories of the floor plans from Hegel's central distinction between form and content , he can refer not only to Lukács but also to Isaac Rubin . Rosdolsky thus demonstrates essential elements from Hegel's “ logic ”, including the contradictory pairs in itself and positedness ( position ), generality and particularity ( particularity ), essence ( substance ) and appearance ( phenomenon ), boundary and barrier , mediation and immediacy. When Marx describes the “production of wage labor” as the “general economic reason” of capital, Rosdolsky recognizes that it is based on the categories of the original , the truthful, the absolute knowledge , the innermost truth in Hegel's logic .

Raya Dunayevskaya , however, criticizes that Rosdolsky does not live up to its own claim to make a contribution to the dialectical method. "If there is anything that is completely absent from his vast study, it is the dialectic," she writes. Hiroshi Uchida also considers Rosdolsky's treatment of dialectics to be inadequate.

Chapter 1: How the 'rough draft' came about

By “rough draft” Rosdolsky means exactly the manuscript written by Marx between July 1857 and March 1858. The editors of the same gave the rough draft including the introduction the designation "ground plans", which they took from letters from Marx.

From the first stage (1844 to 1846) of the economic studies that Marx had planned to publish under the title Critique of Politics and Political Economy, only a fragment has survived that was later published under the title Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts from 1844 . This is a first rough sketch that provides the framework for the subsequent elaboration. In the misery of philosophy and the Communist Manifesto as well as the lectures on wage labor and capital , Marx already argues on the basis of classical economics . In the theory of money and basic rent theory , however, he had not yet overcome Ricardo's views. After being interrupted by the revolution of 1848, Marx resumed work on economic theory in exile in London in 1850. From his letter it is clear that he was already looking for a publisher and that the plan to include a criticism of politics was dropped. The work On the Critique of Political Economy , which Marx published in 1859, is the first version of the opening chapters “Commodity” and “Money” of capital .

Karl Marx , Theories of Added Value , 1956

The Theories of Surplus Value Rosdolsky has after the issue of Karl Kautsky quotes; the footnotes in the history of its creation have been edited according to the MEW edition (26.1. – 26.3).

Chapter 2: The Structure of Marx's Work

Marx wrote two types of construction plans for Das Kapital .

The plan from 1857 provided for the following structure:

  1. The book of capital
    1. Capital in general
      1. Production process of capital
      2. Circulation process of capital
      3. Profit and interest
    2. Cut off from the competition
    3. Section on the credit system
    4. Section from the share capital
  2. The Real Estate Book
  3. The book about wage labor
  4. The book of the state
  5. The book of foreign trade
  6. The book about the world market and the crises

The plan from 1866 (1865) provided the following structure:

Cover of the new edition, ça ira 2018
Book I Production Process of Capital
Book II Circulation Process of Capital
Book III Design of the overall process
Book IV History of Theory

Rosdolsky deals in detail with Kautsky's thesis (from his preface to the theories about surplus value ) that the two plans are fundamentally indistinguishable from one another; the structure of the ground plans is basically the same as that which Marx later explained in Capital . Rosdolsky resolutely rejects this with arguments well founded in detail.

In addition, Rosdolsky criticizes Kautsky's view that the “change in the appearance of the law of appropriation” (Marx) is the “historical tendency of capitalist accumulation”. Rather, it is about converting “the property law of commodity production” (Marx) or the “appropriation law of simple commodity management” (Rosdolsky) into the “laws of capitalist appropriation” (Marx).

Only Henryk Grossman had 1,929 ever raised the question of what considerations Marx had changed its structure. The 1857 plan seems to follow the usual division of the factors of production into land , labor and capital . For Grossmann, the first draft seems to follow the usual empirical classification of subjects, while it was only the second draft that worked its way through to a dialectical perspective. Rosdolsky rejects this explanation, because Marx has always firmly rejected the Trinitarian formula . Friedrich Behrens also rejects Grossmann's attempt to explain it as inadequate, but cannot improve it decisively either.

In the new plan of 1865/66, the “Book of Capital” appears divided into three books, with “Capital in general” being the focus. The originally planned books were thus reduced to only one thing - that of capital. The conceptual juxtaposition of (abstract) “capital in general” and (concrete) “competition” has been dropped. The material from the original Books II and III on property and wage labor has been integrated into Volumes I and III of Capital . The creation of an actual history of economic theory was postponed, as was the book on the world market and the section on credit. There is a manuscript for the history of theory, known as theories of surplus value . Therefore these are sometimes referred to as “Volume IV” of Capital . The books from the state and from foreign trade are no longer available.

Marx's change of plan is thus interpreted by Rosdolsky as a "process of progressive narrowing of the original plan, which at the same time corresponded to an expansion of its remaining part".

The change in the plan is based on a changed method of representation, which is required in order to adequately implement the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete . If Marx starts out from concrete reality, real social conditions, in his investigation, he opens the theoretical analysis with a critique of the categories of political economy . Before trade, competition and credit can be examined theoretically and empirically, terms such as exchange , division of labor , goods and prices must first be presented and criticized in terms of the history of theory.

In Appendix I, “The Book of Wage Labor”, Rosdolsky finds that Marx had given up the original plan for a separate book on wage labor in order to include the subject matter in Das Kapital , Volume 1, and thus improve the transition from the value of the commodity to the price of production to be able to represent.

In Appendix II, “Methodological Note on R. Luxemburg's Critique of Marx's Schemes of Reproduction”, Rosdolsky deals with Rosa Luxemburg's anti-criticism . Your mistake was not to have taken into account "capital in general" in addition to the distinction between individual capital and total capital. Your criticism of Marx is therefore based on the false assumption that the analysis in Das Kapital , Volumes 1 and 2, intends to provide an empirically complete, historically accurate representation of the development of capitalism.

Chapter 3: K. Marx and the Problem of Use Value in Political Economy

Marxists like Rudolf Hilferding or Paul Sweezy understood Marx as if he wanted to completely exclude use value from economic considerations. In his contribution, Rosdolsky shows that Marx was only concerned with leaving use-value out, insofar as it is all about use-value, but not insofar as use-value changes the economic definition of form. Marx even explicitly accuses Ricardo of neglecting this specific role of use-value.

In addition, it makes a great difference whether one considers the simple circulation of commodities, where the specific use-value character of a commodity is irrelevant for exchange, or, say, the exchange between wage labor and capital. The latter is based precisely on the special use value property of wage labor to produce exchange values.

Marx accused Adolph Wagner of having overlooked

“That in the development of the value form of the commodity, in the last instance of its monetary form, that is, of money, the value of one commodity is represented in the use value of the other, that is, in the natural form of the other commodity; that the surplus value itself is derived from a 'specific' and its exclusive use value of labor [...] "

The double character of the commodity form and of labor itself was the starting point of Marx's investigation.

“Originally, the commodity appeared to us as something dual, use value and exchange value. A closer look will show that the work contained in the goods is also dichotomous. This point, which I first developed critically, is the starting point around which the understanding of political economy revolves. "

Rosdolsky then deals in detail with the various passages where use-value as such is modified by the formal relations of bourgeois economy or, in turn, modifies the formal determinations. Finally, he also goes into how the question of demand and supply comes into the analysis. He juxtaposes the technological interpretation of the socially necessary working time with a second interpretation, according to which only what is socially necessary can apply to what is appropriate to the total social need. Several authors have taken these two interpretations as a contradiction . According to Rosdolsky, however, these are two different stages in the analytical process.

Chapter 4: criticism of the labor allowance theory

In the rough draft , Marx opens his theoretical investigations with a criticism by Alfred Darimon, a representative of the Proudhonist doctrine of free money , who sees the main evil in the predominance of precious metals in the monetary system. This criticism is given less and less space in the later published versions of Marx's theory of money. For Marx, the replacement of a precious metal currency by “time sheets” falls short because such a monetary reform overlooks the increasing productivity of labor and its effects on the price system. Anyone who wants to eliminate the causes and undesirable consequences of such crises must abolish the money economy altogether.

Chapter 5: 'Transition from Value to Money'

With his analysis of the form of value , Marx wants to show how, why, and through which commodity is money. Since the working hours objectified in the individual goods cannot coincide with the general or average working hours, it is necessary to objectify the general working hours in a particular goods, to which each individual goods can be compared. In this way Marx arrives at his theoretical explanation of money formation.

In the magnitude and form of value, the two contradicting sides of the existence of the commodity emerge as a direct unity of use value and exchange value . Since the exchange value of a thing gains an immediate, independent existence in money, this becomes the objective basis of commodity fetishism , in that the social conditions of commodity production gain the appearance of an independent factual existence, which is thus reflected in reverse in the consciousness of those who are exchanging.

The money form does not solve all contradictions between use value and exchange value, however, since the separate forms of existence always leave open the possibility that reciprocal convertibility will not be realized, because this presupposes separate transactions which do not necessarily take place in a coordinated manner.

Chapter 6, 7, 8: The functions of money

Here Rosdolsky deals with money as a measure of value, as a medium of circulation and finally with “money as money”, i.e. H. as "the sole form of value or the only adequate existence of exchange value in relation to all other commodities as mere use values".

This includes money as a treasure, money as a means of payment and money as a world coin. The contradictions of the simple commodity circulation WGW drive to the development of the mode of circulation of exchange value as capital, in the self-reproducing process GWG.

Chapter 9: Introductory Note (On the Reality of the Law of Value in the Capitalist Economy)

To what extent does the logical sequence of goods - value - money - capital also reflect a historical development? Each category goes beyond itself; none can be fully understood without the preceding one. Each presupposes the following and can only attain its full development on their basis. In the Grundrisse Marx formulates the contradiction that, on the one hand, the simple circulation of commodities with the concept of exchange value expresses ownership of the result of one's own work as a basic requirement of bourgeois society; on the other hand, in the development of capitalism, apparently contradicting laws result from this basic requirement. The classic economists have saved themselves from this embarrassment by relocating the validity of the laws of the simple circulation of goods to an illusory prehistoric age. In real history, however, the original accumulation occurred in communities where private exchange was only the exception. The full development of the circulation of goods only asserts itself on the basis of capitalist production. The law of value therefore only comes into full effect in capitalism. Methodologically, this can be seen in connection with Marx's method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. It is based on it that simple categories represent only an abstract moment of the concrete totality and only prove their validity in this; Of course, simple categories may have existed historically before, but only in an untrained form. Since all products become commodities in capitalism, they also become products of capital, whereby the law of value is modified in its mode of operation. For abstract determinations can never be applied directly to concrete historical conditions, but only mediated through intermediate links. Marx therefore does not consider simple and capitalist commodity production in two separate models, but rather within one and the same model.

10th to 25th chapters

Alongside Mandel, Rosdolsky is often cited as a critic of an absolute impoverishment theory ( pauperism ). In two sub-chapters in the appendix to the 20th chapter on original accumulation -  5. The so-called "impoverishment theory" and 6. The grain of truth of the "impoverishment theory"  - Rosdolsky refutes the popular opinion that Marx held the view that capitalism would inevitably increase lead to a progressive absolute deterioration or impoverishment of the working masses. Although this view was loosely represented in the Communist Manifesto , it was later revised by Marx and Engels themselves. Trotsky had come to similar conclusions. Marx rejected Lassalle 's iron law on wages .

Chapter 10: The appropriation law of simple merchandise management

Chapter 11: Transition to capital ("Becoming capital out of money")

Chapter 12: Exchange between Capital and Labor

Chapter 13: Work process and recovery process

Chapter 14: Value Creation and Value Maintenance in the Production Process ('Variables' and 'Constant' Capital)

Chapter 15: The general concept and the two basic forms of surplus value

Chapter 16: Relative Surplus Value and Productive Power (On the increasing difficulty of the valorization of capital with the development of the capitalist mode of production)

Chapter 17: The production methods of relative surplus value (cooperation; manufacture; machinery)

Chapter 18: The 'simultaneous working days'. The capitalist population law and the 'industrial reserve army' (Marx's criticism of Malthus)

Chapter 19: The Process of Reproduction and the Reversal of the Appropriation Law

Chapter 20: The original accumulation and the accumulation of capitals

Appendix: A critical appraisal of Marx's wage theory 1. Marx's wage theory 2. Marx on the movement of wages A) The general conditions for increasing wages B) The business cycle and the wage movement 3. Marx's theory of relative wages 4. The industrial reserve army as wage regulator 5. The so-called 'impoverishment theory' 6. The grain of truth in the 'impoverishment theory' 7. Final remark

Chapter 21: Transition from the Production Process into the Circulation Process of Capital. Excursus on the realization problem and the first reproduction scheme

Chapter 22: The circulation time and its influence on the determination of value

Chapter 23: The capital turnover and the turnover time. The continuity of capitalist production and division of capital into portions

Chapter 24: The formal determinations of fixed and circulating (liquid) capital

Chapter 25: Transformation of surplus value into profit. The general rate of profit

Chapter 26: The law of the falling rate of profit and the tendency of capitalism to collapse

see also: Marxist crisis theory

Marx himself did not fully elaborate his explanation of economic crises in capitalism, that is, to the point of recording empirical and historical facts. His theoretical analysis remains here with the idea of ​​the “ideal average”. Marx, on the other hand, never completed his studies on the “many capitals” of competition. But the tendency towards the fall in the rate of profit (TFPR), disproportionality (imbalance) and underconsumption (lack of sales ) can be identified as elements of a crisis theory in Marx. According to Marx, disruptions in the capital cycle would lead to cyclical crises. Instead of investing in workers ( variable capital ), the capitalists buy new machines ( constant capital ) in their “competition” (Marx ) and thus deprive themselves of the possibility of increasing the production of surplus value . The result is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall . At the same time, sales are falling , which means there is a lack of opportunities to realize added value. There is over production - and overcapacity crises . If there is too much capital that cannot be invested, Marx speaks of over-accumulation . This creates financial bubbles and excessive speculation . Furthermore, there is an imbalance between the various branches of capitalist production.

Rosdolsky's work is often read in terms of a Marxist crisis theory. Even if Rosdolsky lacks an elaborated crisis theory as well as Marx, he does give an overview of the state of the discussion, for example on the debate about the (abstract or concrete) character of the reproduction schemes. For Rosdolsky, this debate is a consequence of the different assessments of the role of use value in capitalist production and the lack of understanding of Marx's method. Rosdolsky emphasizes the importance of the so-called law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in Marx in the third volume of Das Kapital for his crisis theory - while the validity of this law was questioned by Sweezy, for example. At the same time, Rosdolsky provided a summary of the Marxist debate on this theorem .

Furthermore, Rosdolsky elaborates the concrete-abstract character of the so-called Marxian reproduction schemes in the second volume, and points out the alleged errors associated with it by the proponents of the so-called underconsumption theory on the one hand and the theory of disproportionality on the other. Among other things, Rosdolsky criticized the so-called “Luxemburgism”, that is, Rosa Luxemburg's underconsumptionist criticism of Marx, as well as the “ legal Marxists ” criticized by Luxemburg . Rosdolsky also provides a critique of Otto Bauer's “neo-harmonic” critique of Luxemburg and deals with well-known Marx critics such as Böhm-Bawerk and Schumpeter .

At the same time, Rosdolsky himself - and subsequently his student Ernest Mandel , to whom Rosdolsky dedicated his work Der Spätkapitalismus in 1972 - was criticized for adhering to a form of underconsumption theory. Paul Mattick describes this theory in Rosdolsky and Mandel as the “primitive idea that realizing surplus value is difficult because the workers cannot buy back their surplus product .” Indeed, Mattick argues, underconsumption is a decisive crisis factor for Rosdolsky, namely the "contradiction between the unrestricted drive to utilize capital and the limited power of consumption of capitalist society."

Like Luxemburg, Rosdolsky took the view of an inevitable collapse of capitalism. Regarding the collapse prognosis of Marx in Grundrisse 42/642 he writes:

“The assertion that Marx did not propose a ' collapse theory ' is mainly due to the revisionist interpretation of Marx's economic system before and after the First World War. In this respect, the theoretical merit of Rosa Luxemburg and Henryk Grossmann cannot be overestimated. "

On the other hand, he criticizes Luxemburg because she understands the chapter on original accumulation in “Das Kapital”, Volume 1, as a purely historical digression, which, in Rosdolsky's view, has placed her incorrectly in the debate about the character of “capital”. According to Rosdolsky is

"Original accumulation is an element which itself constitutes the capital relation and is therefore 'contained in the concept of capital'."

Rosdolsky dedicated the entire Appendix II in Volume 1 to this complex of topics: Methodical Comments on Rosa Luxemburg's Critique of Marx's Schemes of Reproduction, as well as his overall investigation in Chapter 30, The Controversy about Marx's Schemes of Reproduction .

According to Rosdolsky, the categories of political economy in Marx's Das Kapital were presented in a strictly logical manner - from “general capital” to “total capital”. There is still disagreement among Marxists on the question of the historical and logical development of capital. Rosdolsky was of the opinion that Marx, as a “cell” in the exchange of goods, had uncovered the germs of all contradictions in modern society, and in doing so he referred to Lenin. Since the logical derivation of the categories is not independent of the historical one, Marx finally introduced Das Kapital with the value, unlike the plan of April 2, 1858.

This knowledge, in turn, was important for Rosdolsky's assessment of the concrete, abstract character of the reproduction schemes. In these, Marx roughly divides capitalist production into two branches of production: 1. The first department, which produces means of production , and 2. The second department, which produces consumer goods . (Instead of consumer goods, Marx himself mostly spoke of foodstuffs , that is, foodstuffs and luxury foods .) According to Marx, these two main departments could be broken down into any number of other departments. For Rosdolsky, the reproduction schemes represent a “ heuristic instrument” on the one hand, and a reflection of the real state of the economy on the other. Rosdolsky thus contradicts the view that Marx first analyzed “pure capitalism” and then devoted himself to its concrete historical form. Rosdolsky was of the opinion that a proportional development and a balance between production ("first department") and consumption ("second department") within the capitalist mode of production could only be achieved in the midst of constant difficulties and disturbances. Of course, this equilibrium between the departments must last at least for short periods of time, otherwise the capitalist system could not function at all.

According to Rosdolsky, the reproduction schemes are therefore not a mere abstraction, but a part of economic reality. Nevertheless, the proportionality of the production departments postulated by these schemes could only be temporary. The equilibrium of the departments assumed by Marx arises as a continuous process out of the disproportionality, so that periods of equilibrium and imbalance would alternate. From this assumption, Mandel finally derives his theory of “long waves” - a further development of the so-called Kondratiev cycle .

27th chapter to 34th chapter

Chapter 27: Fragments about interest and credit 1. To what extent the original construction plan provided for the treatment of these topics 2. The rough draft about interest-bearing capital 3. The category of “capital as money” 4. Critique of Proudhonism 5. The rough draft about the role of credit in the capitalist economy 6. The limits of credit

Appendix: On the more recent criticism of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit

Chapter 28: The historical limit of the law of value. Marx on the socialist social order 1. Marx on the development of human individuality in capitalism 2. The role of machinery as the material prerequisite of socialist society 3. The withering away of the law of value in socialism

Chapter 29: The Reification of Economic Categories and the "True Understanding of the Social Production Process"

Chapter 30: The Controversy over Marx's Reproduction Schemes I. Introductory II. The discussion between the 'Narodniki' and the 'legal' Russian Marxists III. Lenin's Theory of Realization IV. R. Hilferding's Interpretation of Marx's Schemes of Reproduction VR Luxemburg's Critique of Marx's Theory of Accumulation

Chapter 31: The Problem of Qualified Work I. Böhm-Bawerk's Critique II. The presumable Marxian solution

Chapter 32: A Comment on the Question of "Misrationalization"

Chapter 33: Joan Robinson's Critique of Marx I. Marx's theory of value II. Marx's doctrine of the nature of capitalist exploitation and his concept of capital III. Final remarks

Chapter 34: The Neo-Marxist Economy I. An Apparently Dogmatic Controversy II. About the Method of Marxian Economy III. Final remark

Edition history

Rosdolsky's work was published for the first time in 1968, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the publication of Capital , by the European Publishing House (EVA) together with the Europa Verlag of the Austrian Trade Union Confederation in three volumes under the title On the History of Marx's Capital. The rough draft of the capital 1857-1858 published.

In the following years the work was reprinted several times, but without the appendices. The book was published in Italian in 1971, in Serbo-Croatian in 1975, in French (only volume 1) in 1976, in Spanish in 1978, in Swedish in 1977 (volume 1) and 1979 (volume 2), in Danish (only in volume 1) in 1981. The English translation was obtained by Peter Burgess and was first published in 1977 by Pluto Press ( London ) as "The making of Marx's 'Capital'" . In the US this edition was distributed by Humanities Press. A translation into Portuguese by the Brazilian intellectual César Benjamin was published in 2000.

Rosdolsky's book consists of a series of magazine articles, some of which have already been published, which he wrote while in exile in America. As an emigrant, shortly after the Second World War he discovered one of the few copies of the Soviet first edition of the Grundrisse (two volumes, Moscow 1939 and 1941) that had surfaced in the West. Rosdolsky himself estimates the number in his foreword at "no more than 3 to 4 copies". Starting with the winter of 1948/49, he was constantly busy with the floor plans .

As an aid to his work and as a preliminary work for a possibly to be created lexicon, he created a subject index from more than 15,000 index cards with references to the editions of the writings of Marx and partly also of Engels; it is kept in the Rosdolsky Archives of the International Institute for Social History (IISG) in Amsterdam.

Effect and reception

The influence of the history of origin on the so-called “ new reading of Marx ” of the 1970s is greater than on the economic discourse . For the first time, the floor plans themselves were subjected to a detailed analysis. In his work, Rosdolsky largely distances himself from the " orthodox Marxism " of social democracy and from Marxism-Leninism . The debate about the “correct interpretation of Marx” focused primarily on the question of the methodological structure and the structural history of capital . Diethard Behrens considers Rosdolsky's work to be a decisive impetus. Kornelia Hafner thinks that Rosdolsky has not been given enough consideration.

Helmut Reichelt , representative of the Neue Marx-Lektüre , praised the text in his work On the logical structure of the concept of capital right from the start:

“When Roman Rosdolsky first had the opportunity to study the rough draft of Capital in 1948, he assumed that the publication of this extensive text would usher in a new phase in the examination of Marx's work. It is true that he did not believe - as can be seen from the preface to his comment on the rough draft - that this text would penetrate a broad readership; He considered that impossible because of the ›peculiar form and the sometimes difficult to understand language‹. Nonetheless, he was convinced that in the future it would hardly be possible to write a book about Marx without first having carefully studied the method in Capital and its relationship to Hegelian philosophy: and that would sooner or later lead to a general clarification many unresolved questions in Marx's work contribute. "

In a radio essay in 1969, Adorno's student Martin Puder emphasized Rosdolsky's work: “The rough draft of Capital commented on by Rosdolsky throws new light on you [the question of whether Marx is outdated] because it emphasizes the flowing character of categories of Marx's thought reveals which, according to the traditional view, seem to be quite fixed. ”It goes on to say:

“Despite his neo-Marxist attitude, Rosdolsky [resists] all attempts to save the theory of the impoverishment of the proletariat through terms such as 'mental impoverishment', 'psychological impoverishment' or even 'moral impoverishment'. Rosdolsky even rejects the term ›relative impoverishment‹. He assumes that such transfers, in which academic Marxism is currently enjoying itself again, only testify to the dullness of their authors towards real, physical deprivation. "

For traditional Marxism, especially for Trotskyist currents, Rosdolsky's work was groundbreaking, especially for the further development of a crisis theory . The political scientist Michael Heinrich writes about Rosdolsky's impact:

“The later discussion had a particularly lasting effect on the fact that in the introductory chapter Rosdolsky emphasized the 'capital in general' category, which was central to the floor plans, and based on this also interpreted the structure of capital (which was then adopted in many capital interpretations in the 1970s ). Although this interpretation is questionable (Marx does not use the category of 'capital in general' at any point in the three volumes of Capital), it sensitized us to the categorical logic of Marx's argument, which was pursued in various directions. "

Winfried Schwarz, however, particularly emphasizes the concept of “capital in general” in his 1978 work “From 'Rohentwurf' zum 'Kapital'” .

With his distinction between the “esoteric” Marx, which is critical of fetishism, and the “exoteric” Marx, oriented towards the paradigm of class struggle , Rosdolsky also provided a sustained criticism of the traditional understanding of Marx. This alleged dichotomy in Marx's work was later taken up by various value critics in their criticism of “labor movement Marxism” or “ideology Marxism”. The author Robert Kurz therefore speaks of a “double Marx”.

Ten years after the history of its origins was published , Antonio Negri gave a series of lectures on the floor plans in Paris , including how Rosdolsky worked on them. In it, Negri calls the genesis a pioneering work, but criticizes the focus on “capital in general” and the “automatic subject” as extreme objectivism.

literature

Text output

  • Roman Rosdolsky: On the history of the origin of Marx's capital. The rough draft of the capital 1857–1858 . 3. Edition. 3 volumes. Europäische Verlagsanstalt (EVA) / Europa Verlag, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1974 (first edition: 1968, published posthumously. Study edition: Unchanged reprint of parts 1–6 of the 2nd, revised edition from 1969 in 2 volumes). Volume 1, ISBN 3-434-45003-3 . Volume 2, ISBN 3-434-45004-1 . Volume 3, ISBN 3-434-45041-6 .
  • Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's ›Capital‹. The rough draft of the capital 1857–1858. Published by the Socialist Forum Initiative. ça ira publishing house. ISBN 978-3-86259-129-9 .
  • Genesi e struttura del “Capitale” di Marx . In: Biblioteca di cultura moderna . tape 712 . Laterza, Bari 1971 (Italian, translation by Bruno Maffi).
  • Prilogue povijesti nastajanja Marxova “Kapitala”. Naert “Kapitala” iz 1857–1858 . In: Hotimir Burger, Ivan Prpić (ed.): Marksizam i savremenost . 2 volumes. Izdavački Centar Komunist, Belgrade 1975 (Serbo-Croatian).
  • Roman Rosdolsky: La genèse du «Capital» chez Karl Marx (= Critiques de l'économie politique. Volume 1: Méthodologie. ) Translated by Jean-Marie Brohm, Catherine Colliot-Thélène u. a. Maspero, Paris 1976, ISBN 2-7070-0806-5 .
  • “Kapitalets” tillkomsthistoria . In: Mats Thorell, Thomas Caesar (eds.): Till kritiken av den politiska ekonomin . tape 1 (1977) and volume 2 (1979). Röda Bokförlaget, Gothenburg (Swedish).
  • Capital's tilblivelseshistory. Raudkastet til capital from 1857–58 . tape 1 . Nansensgade Antikvariat, Copenhagen 1981 (Danish).
  • César Benjamin (ed.): Gênese e estrutura de O Capital de Karl Marx . EDUERJ / Contraponto, Rio de Janeiro 2001 (Portuguese).

Rosdolsky's work on "capital"

  • On the more recent criticism of Marx's law of the falling rate of profit . In: Kyklos. International Journal of Social Sciences . tape 9 , no. 2 . Basel 1956, p. 208–226 (special edition).
  • The esoteric and the exoteric Marx. For the critical appraisal of Marx's wage theory I – III . In: Work and Economy . tape 11 , 11 ff. 1957, pp. 348-351, 388-391, 20-24 .
  • Review of Martin Trottmann, On the interpretation and criticism of the collapse theory by Henryk Grossmann . In: Kyklos. International Journal of Social Sciences . tape 3 . Basel 1957, p. 353-355 .
  • The use value in Karl Marx. A criticism of the previous Marx interpretation . In: Kyklos. International Journal of Social Sciences . tape XII . Basel 1959, p. 27-56 .
  • Joan Robinson's Critique of Marx . In: Work and Economy . tape 13 , 8 f. 1959, p. 178-183, 210-212 .
  • A neo-Marxist textbook on political economy . In: Kyklos. International Journal of Social Sciences . tape 16 , no. 4 . Basel November 1, 1963, p. 626–654 (special edition).
  • Method of Marx's Capital . In: New German Critique . No. 3 (spring), 1974.

List of German-language secondary literature

  • Otto Morf: On the “Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy” . In: History and Dialectics in Political Economy. On the relationship between economic theory and economic history in Karl Marx . 1970 ( October 2004 version [accessed February 9, 2008] The work is dedicated to Roman Rosdolsky).
  • Ernest Mandel : Late Capitalism. Attempt at a Marxist explanation . Suhrkamp, ​​1972, ISBN 3-518-10521-3 (The book is dedicated to Roman Rosdolsky).
  • Anselm Jappe: pioneer of value criticism: Roman Rosdolsky . In: Kritischer Kreis (Ed.): Streifzüge . tape 7 , no. 1 . Vienna 2002 ( streifzuege.org [accessed on February 10, 2008] On the occasion of the translation into Portuguese by César Benjamin. Copyleft ( Memento of February 14, 2008 in the Internet Archive )).
  • Marcus Gassner: The Marxian schemata and their problems . In: floor plans . tape 1 , no. 1 , 2002, ISSN  1814-3164 ( grundrisse.net [accessed February 10, 2008] Introduction to the discussion of the reproduction schemes . GNU FDL ).

List of foreign language secondary literature

  • Raya Dunayevskaya : A Critique of Roman Rosdolsky. Rosdolsky's Methodology and the Missing Dialectic . In: London Corresponding Committee (ed.): The Hobgoblin . No. 6 , 2005 ( thehobgoblin.co.uk ( February 8, 2008 memento on Internet Archive ) [accessed February 10, 2008] Reprint from: Marx's Capital and Today's Global Crisis . News & Letters , Detroit 1978).
  • John-Paul Himka: Roman Rosdolsky's Reconsideration of the Traditional Marxist Debate on the Schemes of Reproduction on New Methodological Grounds: Comments . In: IS Koropeckyj (Ed.): Selected Contributions of Ukrainian Scholars to Economics. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Sources and Documents series . Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (Harvard University Press), Cambridge MA 1984, p. 135–47 (comments on the above essay).
  • Manfred A. Turban: Roman Rosdolsky's Reconsideration of the Traditional Marxist Debate on the Schemes of Reproduction on New Methodological Grounds . In: IS Koropeckyj (Ed.): Selected Contributions of Ukrainian Scholars to Economics. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Sources and Documents series . Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (Harvard University Press), Cambridge MA 1984, p. 91–134 (dealing with Rosdolsky's analysis of the debate about reproductive schemes ).

further reading

  • Martin Jakob et al .: Imperialism & Marxist Theory. Part 1: The classics . In: Working group Marxism (ed.): Marxism . tape 7 . Vienna March 1996 ( agmarxismus.net [accessed on February 9, 2008] 222 pages; out of print).
  • Michael Heinrich : Weltanschauung Marxism or Critique of Political Economy? In: floor plans . tape 1 , no. 1 , 2002, ISSN  1814-3164 ( grundrisse.net [accessed February 10, 2008] Contains a section on Rosdolsky's role in the discourse of the 1970s. GNU FDL ).
  • Imperialism & Marxist Theory. Part 2: From the early Comintern to the Fourth International . In: Working group Marxism (ed.): Marxism . tape 21 . Vienna 2002, ISBN 3-901831-17-7 ( overview [accessed on February 9, 2008] 110 pages).

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Ingo Stützle: Marx's inner monologue. 150 years ago Karl Marx wrote the 'Grundrisse' . In: ak - newspaper for left debate and praxis , No. 523, Hamburg December 14, 2007 ( stuetzle.in-berlin.de ( Memento from July 19, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) as of March 24, 2009)
  2. ↑ a b c On the genesis of Marx's ›Capital‹ | ça ira publishing house . In: ça ira-Verlag . ( ca-ira.net [accessed on August 13, 2018]).
  3. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital. Preface, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 7 f.
  4. ^ A b Raya Dunayevskaya : A Critique of Roman Rosdolsky. Rosdolsky's Methodology and the Missing Dialectic. In: London Corresponding Committee (ed.): The Hobgoblin. No. 6, 2005 ( thehobgoblin.co.uk ( Memento of February 8, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) As of March 8, 2008; Reprint from: Marx's Capital and Today's Global Crisis. News & Letters , Detroit 1978).
  5. ^ A b Roman Rosdolsky Papers , directory at the International Institute for Social History Amsterdam (php, 141432 bytes)
  6. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . Preface, European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 10.
  7. ↑ Alfred Schmidt : The concept of nature in the teaching of Marx. (Frankfurt am Main 1962).
    Kojiro Takagi: Introduction to the System of Crisis Theory. Tokyo 1956.
    For Japan see: Teinosuke Otani, Iichiro Sekine: Occupation with Marx and Engels in Japan. Research on the method of political economy - the history of the origins of “capital” . In: Yearbook of the Institute for Marxist Studies and Research , No. 12 ( International Marx-Engels Research ), 1987 ( dearchiv.de as of March 24, 2009)
  8. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital. Preface, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, pp. 7–11.
  9. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . Preface, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 10, note 5.
  10. ↑ Philosophische Hefte from 1895 to 1916, Lenin Works , Volume 38. / Geoffrey Pilling: Marx's Capital, Philosophy and Political Economy , 1980, introduction.
  11. ↑ History and class consciousness / Roman Rosdolsky: On the origin of Marx's capital . Preface, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 9.
  12. ↑ a b Anselm Jappe: Trailblazer of value criticism: Roman Rosdolsky. In: Kritischer Kreis (Ed.): Streifzüge . 7, No. 1, Vienna 2002 ( streifzuege.org as of April 29, 2008. Copyleft ( memento of February 14, 2008 in the Internet Archive )).
  13. ↑ Cf. Biographical note in: Isaak Rubin : Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System .
  14. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 58, note 109.
  15. ^ Raya Dunayevskaya : A Critique of Roman Rosdolsky. 1978.
  16. ↑ Hiroshi Uchida: Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic , 1988.
  17. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 20 f.
  18. ^ Foreword by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute Moscow. In: Karl Marx: Grundrisse der Critique of Political Economy (Rohentwuirf) 1857-1858. Appendix 1850–1859. 2nd edition Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1974. S. XIV. / Marx to Engels, December 8 and 18, 1857, November 29, 1858; to Lassalle December 21, 1857, February 22, 1858.
  19. ↑ MEW 27, pp. 16, 23, 25, 78, 79.
  20. ^ Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: supplementary volume. Fonts. Manuscripts. Letters up to 1844. First part. Dietz Verlag Berlin 1974, pp. 465-588.
  21. ↑ printed in MEW Volume 13.
  22. ^ Henryk Grossmann : The change in the original construction plan of Marx's capital and its causes . Archives for the History of Socialism and the Labor Movement. No. 14, 1929, pp. 305-338. ( marxists.org )
  23. ↑ Preliminary editorial note on the second edition . To: Roman Rosdolsky: On the history of the origins of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main 4th ed. 1974. Volume I, ISBN 3-434-45003-3 , p. 11.
  24. ↑ Marx to Engels, April 2, 1858. MEW 29, p. 312 ff. / Marx to Joseph Weydemeier, February 1, 1859, p. 572 f.
  25. ↑ Rosdolsky (I, p. 24, note 1) postpones the creation date of the second plan to 1865, because the construction plan in the letter to Engels of July 31, 1865 (MEW 31, p. 132) corresponds to the one in the letter to Kugelmann of 13 October 1866 corresponds exactly.
  26. ^ On the genesis of Marx's ›Capital‹ | ça ira publishing house . In: ça ira-Verlag . ( ca-ira.net [accessed October 7, 2018]).
  27. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 32, note 20.
  28. ^ Henryk Grossmann : The change in the original construction plan of Marx's capital and its causes . Archives for the History of Socialism and the Labor Movement. No. 14, 1929, pp. 305-338. ( marxists.org )
  29. ↑ Friedrich Behrens : On the method of political economy . Leipzig 1952, pp. 31-48.
  30. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 25.
  31. ^ Karl Marx: The capital . 3rd volume, 1st edition 1894. Quoted from: Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW). Volume 25. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1959, p. 120 ( mlwerke.de ) (as of March 29, 2009)
  32. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 32.
  33. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 24.
  34. ↑ Floor plans , p. 22.
  35. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Wien 1968, 1973, pp. 43 ff.
    Cf. Karl Marx: Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy . In: Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW). Volume 13. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1959, p. 631. ( mlwerke.de as of March 30, 2009)
    The “Introduction” is part of the outline of the Critique of Political Economy :
    Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW). Volumes 42. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1959, p. 35 f.
    Marx-Engels Complete Edition (MEGA). II. Division, Volume 1.1, p. 35 f.
  36. ↑ Rosdolsky, I, pp. 84f.
  37. ↑ printed as an appendix in the later editions of their accumulation
  38. ^ : Rudolf Hilferding: Eugen Böhm von Bawerk | Böhm-Bawerk's Marx criticism . In: Marx Studies. Sheets on the theory and politics of scientific socialism . Volume 1, Vienna 1904, 1-61; here: p. 9. (Reprint: Glashütten iT: Auvermann, 1971); mxks.de (PDF; 1.6 MB) Status: March 22, 2009.
    Criticism by Eduard Bernstein : Documents of Socialism . No. 4, 1904, pp. 154-157.
    Answer Hilferding: New time . No. 4, 1904, pp. 110-111.
    Roman Rosdolsky: On the history of the origin of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 99 f.
  39. ↑ Paul M. Sweezy: Theory of Capitalist Development. An analytical study of the principles of Marx's social economy. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1970.
  40. ↑ cf. Das Kapital , I, p. 50.
  41. ↑ previously published as Roman Rosdolsky: The use value in Karl Marx. A criticism of the previous Marx interpretation . In: Kyklos. International Journal of Social Sciences . XII, Basel 1959, pp. 27-56.
  42. ↑ Grundrisse , p. 179, p. 540, pp. 226–227.
  43. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 101 f.
    Karl Marx: Marginal glosses on Adolph Wagner's "Textbook of Political Economy" . London 1879/1880. Marx-Engels Works (MEW). Volume 19. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1962, pp. 351-383, here p. 370 f. ( marxists.org ); (As of March 22, 2009)
  44. ^ Karl Marx: The capital . 1st volume, 1st edition 1867. Quoted from: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels : Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Dept. II, Volume 5, Berlin 1983, p. 22 ( pagesperso-orange.fr ); (Status: March 4, 2008) - In a modified form also in: Marx-Engels-Werke (MEW). Volume 23. Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1959, p. 56 ( mlwerke.de ); (As of March 4, 2008)
  45. ↑ Das> Kapital, I, pp. 53–54.
  46. ↑ Das Kapital , I, pp. 121f.
  47. ^ T. Grigorovici: The theory of values ​​in Marx and Lassalle. Contribution to the history of a scientific misunderstanding . 1908. / K. Diehl: Social science explanations on D. Ricardo's basic laws… 1905, pp. 125–128.
  48. ↑ Alfred Darimon (1819-1902): De la réforme des Banques. Avec an introduction by M. Émile de Girardin. Paris 1856.
  49. ↑ MEW Volume 13; Capital , Volume 1
  50. ↑ Das Kapital , Volume I, p. 107.
  51. ↑ Das Kapital , I, p. 144.
  52. ↑ GR: 903f .; Theories, III, p. 69.
  53. ↑ GR: 74, 904.
  54. ↑ Capital, II: 39, 141.
  55. ↑ Rosdolsky, Volume II, p. 208.
  56. ↑ GR: 22, 26f.
  57. ↑ GR: 22-24.
  58. ^ Leon Trotsky : Ninety Years of the Communist Manifesto , November 17, 1937. Quoted from: Denkbie. Political experiences in the age of permanent revolution . Frankfurt am Main 1981, p. 333 ( marxists.org ; as of March 4, 2008)
  59. ↑ a b Martin Jakob et al .: Imperialism & Marxist Theory. Part 1: The classics . In: Working group Marxism (ed.): Marxism . tape 7 . Vienna March 1996.
  60. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . Volume 2, European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, p. 467 ff.
  61. ^ Karl Marx: The reproduction and circulation of the total social capital . In: Das Kapital , Volume 2. In: MEW . Volume 24, Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR), pp. 351-518.
  62. ^ Rosa Luxemburg : Anti-criticism. The accumulation of capital or what the epigones made of Marx's theory . Written in 1916, published posthumously in 1921. In: RL Collected Works . Volume 5, Dietz Verlag, Berlin (GDR) 1990, pp. 413-523.
  63. ↑ Otto Bauer : The accumulation of capital . In: The New Time . 31, Jg. 1912/13, Volume 1, pp. 831-838 and 862-874.
  64. ↑ Peter Cardorff: Man without a rope. Roman Rosdolsky on his hundredth birthday . In: ak 416 Hamburg, July 2, 1998.
  65. ^ MIA : Encyclopedia of Marxism: Glossary of People , Ernest Mandel.
  66. ^ A b c Paul Mattick : Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism , 1972.
  67. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 392 f.
  68. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 449.
  69. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 327.
  70. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, pp. 524–596.
  71. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 165.
  72. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's "Capital" . European Publishing House, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 144.
  73. ↑ Cf. Ernest Mandel : The late capitalism. Attempt at a Marxist explanation . Suhrkamp Verlag , Frankfurt am Main 1972, ISBN 3-518-10521-3 and Ernest Mandel : The long waves in capitalism. A Marxist explanation . 2nd Edition. Suhrkamp Verlag , Frankfurt am Main 1987.
  74. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital. The rough draft of the capital 1857–1858 . 3. Edition. 3 volumes. European Publishing House (EVA) / Europa Verlag, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1974 (first edition: 1968).
  75. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: Genesi e struttura del “Capitale” di Marx . In: Biblioteca di cultura moderna . tape 712 . Laterza, Bari 1971 (665 pages. Translation by Bruno Maffi).
  76. ↑ Roman Rosdolsky: Prilog povijesti nastajanja Marxova “Kapitala”. Naert “Kapitala” iz 1857–1858 . In: Marksizam i savremenost . tape 2 . Izdavački Centar Komunist, Belgrade 1975 (Volume 1: 180 pages; Volume 2: 301 pages. Edited and translated by Hotimir Burger and Ivan Prpić).
  77. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: La genèse du "Capital" chez Karl Marx. (Critiques de l'économie politique). Volume 1: Méthodologie. Translated by Jean-Marie Brohm, Catherine Colliot-Thélène u. a. Maspero, Paris 1976, ISBN 2-7070-0806-5 .
  78. ↑ Roman Rosdolsky: “Kapitalets” tillkomsthistoria . In: Mats Thorell, Thomas Caesar (eds.): Till kritiken av den politiska ekonomin . tape 1 . Röda Bokförlaget, Göteborg 1977, ISBN 91-85258-10-5 .
  79. ↑ Roman Rosdolsky: “Kapitalets” tillkomsthistoria . In: Mats Thorell, Thomas Caesar (eds.): Till kritiken av den politiska ekonomin . tape 2 . Röda Bokförlaget, Göteborg 1977, ISBN 91-85258-28-8 .
  80. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: Capital tilblivelseshistorie. Raudkastet til capital from 1857–58 . Nansensgade Antikvariat, Copenhagen 1981 (285 pages. Only volume 1 translated).
  81. ↑ Roman Rosdolsky: GENESIS e estrutura de O Capital de Karl Marx . EDUERJ / Contraponto, Rio de Janeiro 2001 (edited and translated by César Benjamin).
  82. ^ Roman Rosdolsky: On the genesis of Marx's capital . Preface, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main / Vienna 1968, 1973, p. 7.
  83. ↑ Ernest Mandel : Wie was Roman Rosdolsky (1898-1967) obituary in Dutch from 1968 (translation from the French by Fréderic Lehembre)
  84. ↑ a b c Michael Heinrich : Annotated list of literature on the criticism of political economy . In: Elmar Altvater u. a .: Kapital.doc , Münster 1999, pp. 188–220. ( oekonomiekritik.de ; as of March 4, 2008)
  85. ^ Diethard Behrens: Society and knowledge . Ça ira Verlag, Freiburg 1993, p. 130.
  86. ↑ Kornelia Hafner, In: Diethard Behrens (Hrsg.): Society and knowledge . Ça ira Verlag, Freiburg 1993, p. 85 f.
  87. ^ Robert Kurz : Post-Marxism and work fetish. On the historical contradiction in Marx's theory . In: krisis 15, January 1995.
    Michael Heine, Hansjörg Herr: The esoteric and exoteric character of Marx's theory of money - a critique . In: A. Schikora et al. a. (Ed.): Political Economy in Transition . Marburg 1992 (A predominantly critical contribution to Marx's monetary theory from a Keynesian perspective).
    Michael Heinrich : esoteric / exoteric . In: Wolfgang Fritz Haug (Ed.): Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism . Volume 3, Hamburg 1997.
  88. ^ Antonio Negri : Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse . South Hadley MA 1984, p. 17.
    Cf. Alex Callinicos : Toni Negri in perspective . In: International Socialism Journal . No. 92, autumn 2001. ( socialistreviewindex.org.uk ; as of March 30, 2009)