Review of Business and Economics Studies, 2017, том 5, № 3

Review of  
Business and 
Economics  
Studies

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Prof. Alexander Ilyinsky
Dean, International Finance Faculty, 
Financial University, Moscow, Russia
ailyinsky@fa.ru 

EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Dr. Zbigniew Mierzwa

EDITORIAL BOARD

Dr. Mark Aleksanyan
Adam Smith Business School, 
The Business School, University 
of Glasgow, UK

Prof. Edoardo Croci
Research Director, IEFE Centre for 
Research on Energy and Environmental 
Economics and Policy, Università 
Bocconi, Italy

Prof. Moorad Choudhry
Dept.of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel 
University, UK

Prof. David Dickinson 
Department of Economics, Birmingham 
Business School, University of 
Birmingham, UK

Prof. Chien-Te Fan
Institute of Law for Science and 
Technology, National Tsing Hua 
University, Taiwan

Prof. Wing M. Fok
Director, Asia Business Studies, College 
of Business, Loyola University New 
Orleans, USA

Prof. Konstantin P. Gluschenko
Faculty of Economics, Novosibirsk State 
University, Russia

Prof. George E. Halkos
Associate Editor in Environment and 
Development Economics, Cambridge 
University Press; Director of Operations 
Research Laboratory, University of 
Thessaly, Greece

Dr. Christopher A. Hartwell
President, CASE — Center for Social and 
Economic Research, Warsaw, Poland

Prof. S. Jaimungal
Associate Chair of Graduate 
Studies, Dept. Statistical Sciences 
& Mathematical Finance Program, 
University of Toronto, Canada

Prof. Bartlomiej Kaminski
University of Maryland, USA; 

Rzeszow University of Information 
Technology and Management,  
Poland

Prof. Vladimir Kvint 
Chair of Financial Strategy, Moscow 
School of Economics, Moscow State 
University, Russia

Prof. Alexander Melnikov 
Department of Mathematical and 
Statistical Sciences, University of 
Alberta, Canada

Prof. George Kleiner
Deputy Director, Central Economics and 
Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy 
of Sciences, Russia

Prof. Kwok Kwong
Director, Asian Pacific Business 
Institute, California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Dimitrios Mavrakis
Director, Energy Policy and 
Development Centre, National and 
Kapodistrian University of Athens, 
Greece

Prof. Steve McGuire
Director, Entrepreneurship Institute, 
California State University,  
Los Angeles, USA

Prof. Rustem Nureev
Сhairman for Research of the 
Department of Economic Theory, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Oleg V. Pavlov
Associate Professor of Economics and 
System Dynamics, Department of Social 
Science and Policy Studies, Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute, USA

Prof. Boris Porfiriev
Deputy Director, Institute of Economic 
Forecasting, Russian Academy of 
Sciences, Russia

Prof. Svetlozar T. Rachev
Professor of Finance, College of 
Business, Stony Brook University, USA

Prof. Boris Rubtsov
Deputy chairman of Department  
of financial markets and banks for R&D, 
Financial University, Russia

Dr. Minghao Shen
Dean, Center for Cantonese Merchants 
Research, Guangdong University of 
Foreign Studies, China

Prof. Dmitry Sorokin
Chairman for Research, Financial 
University, Russia

Prof. Robert L. Tang
Vice Chancellor for Academic, De La 
Salle College of Saint Benilde, Manila, 
The Philippines

Dr. Dimitrios Tsomocos 
Saïd Business School, Fellow in 
Management, University of Oxford; 
Senior Research Associate, Financial 
Markets Group, London School 
of Economics, UK

Prof. Sun Xiaoqin
Dean, Graduate School of Business, 
Guangdong University of Foreign 
Studies, China

REVIEW OF BUSINESS 
AND ECONOMICS STUDIES 
(ROBES) is the quarterly peerreviewed scholarly journal published 
by the Financial University under 
the Government of Russian 
Federation, Moscow. Journal’s 
mission is to provide scientific 
perspective on wide range of topical 
economic and business subjects.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Financial University
Leningradsky prospekt, 53,  
office 5.6
123995 Moscow
Russian Federation
Telephone: +7 (499) 943-98-02
Website: www.robes.fa.ru

AUTHOR INQUIRIES
Inquiries relating to the 
submission of articles can be sent 
by electronic mail to robes@fa.ru.

COPYRIGHT AND PHOTOCOPYING 
© 2017 Review of Business and 
Economics Studies. All rights 
reserved. No part of this publication 
may be reproduced, stored 
or transmitted in any form or by any 
means without the prior permission 
in writing from the copyright holder. 
Single photocopies of articles may 
be made for personal use as allowed 
by national copyright laws. 
ISSN 2308-944X

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР
А.И. Ильинский, профессор, декан 
Международного финансо вого факультета Финансового университета 

ВЫПУСКАЮЩИЙ РЕДАКТОР
Збигнев Межва, д-р экон. наук

РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

М.М. Алексанян, профессор Бизнесшколы им. Адама Смита, Университет 
Глазго (Великобритания)

К. Вонг, профессор, директор Института азиатско-тихоокеанского бизнеса 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

К.П. Глущенко, профессор экономического факультета Новосибирского 
госуниверситета

С. Джеимангал, профессор Департамента статистики и математических финансов Университета Торонто 
(Канада)

Д. Дикинсон, профессор Департамента экономики Бирмингемской бизнесшколы, Бирмингемский университет 
(Великобритания)

Б. Каминский, профессор, 
Мэрилендский университет (США); 
Университет информационных 
технологий и менеджмента в Жешуве 
(Польша)

В.Л. Квинт, заведующий кафедрой 
финансовой стратегии Московской 
школы экономики МГУ, профессор 
Школы бизнеса Лассальского университета (США)

Г. Б. Клейнер, профессор, член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономико-математического института РАН

Э. Крочи, профессор, директор по 
научной работе Центра исследований 
в области энергетики и экономики 
окружающей среды Университета 
Боккони (Италия)

Д. Мавракис, профессор, 
директор Центра политики 
и развития энергетики 
Национального университета  
Афин (Греция)

С. Макгвайр, профессор, директор Института предпринимательства 
Университета штата Калифорния, 
Лос-Анджелес (США)

А. Мельников, профессор  
Депар та мента математических 
и ста тистических исследований 
Университета провинции Альберта 
(Канада)

Р.М. Нуреев, профессор, научный 
руководитель Департамента экономической теории Финансового 
университета

О.В. Павлов, профессор  
Депар та мента по литологии 
и полити ческих исследований 
Ворчестерского политехнического 
института (США) 

Б.Н. Порфирьев, профессор,  
член-корреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Института 
народнохозяйственного прогнозирования РАН

С. Рачев, профессор Бизнес-кол леджа 
Университета Стони Брук (США) 

Б.Б. Рубцов, профессор, заместитель 
руководителя Департамента финансовых рынков и банков по НИР 
Финансового университета

Д.Е. Сорокин, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, научный 
руководитель Финансового 
университета

Р. Тан, профессор, проректор 
Колледжа Де Ла Саль Св. Бенильды 
(Филиппины) 

Д. Тсомокос, Оксфордский университет, старший научный сотрудник 
Лондонской школы экономики  
(Великобритания)

Ч.Т. Фан, профессор, Институт 
права в области науки и технологии, 
национальный университет Цин Хуа 
(Тайвань)

В. Фок, профессор, директор по 
исследованиям азиатского бизнеса Бизнес-колледжа Университета 
Лойола (США)

Д.Е. Халкос, профессор, Университет 
Фессалии (Греция)

К.А. Хартвелл, президент Центра 
социальных и экономических исследований CASE (Польша)

М. Чудри, профессор, Университет 
Брунеля (Великобритания)

Сун Цяокин, профессор, декан Высшей школы бизнеса Гуандунского 
университета зарубежных исследований (КНР)

М. Шен, декан Центра кантонских 
рыночных исследований Гуандунского университета (КНР)

Редакция научных журналов 
Финансового университета
123995, Москва, ГСП-5,  
Ленинградский пр-т, 53,  
комн. 5.6
Тел. 8 (499) 943-98-02.
Интернет: www.robes.fa.ru.

Журнал “Review of Business and 
Economics Studies” («Вест ник 
исследований бизнеса и экономики») зарегистрирован в Федеральной службе по надзору в 
сфере связи, информационных 
технологий и массовых коммуникаций 15 сентября 2016 г. 
Свидетельство о регистрации 
ПИ № ФС77-67072. 

Подписано в печать: 22.09.2017. 
Формат 60 × 84 1/8. 
Заказ № 920 от 22.09.2017. 
Отпечатано в Отделе полиграфии 
Финуниверситета  
(Ленинградский проспект, д. 49).
16+

CONTENTS

Karl Marx is Coming Back!

Zbigniew Mierzwa   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .5

Aristotle on Money and on Economy: First Remarks

Catherine Brégianni  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .32

Yuan-denominated Bonds  

as an Alternative Source of Borrowing

Victor P. Andreev   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .40

Underwriting Syndicated Loans  

in the Russian Market

Alexey A. Tarasov  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .45

Some Socio-economic Aspects of Development  

of Democratic Republic of Congo

Tshibola Aimee Murphie Lubeshi   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .52

Review of  
Business and  
Economics  
Studies

Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

Вестник 
исследований 
бизнеса  
и экономики

№ 3, 2017

CОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Карл Маркс возвращается!

Збигнев Межва  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .5

Аристотель о деньгах и об экономике: предварительные заметки

Катерине Брегианни  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .32

Облигации в юанях  

как альтернативный источник заемных ресурсов

Виктор Павлович Андреев   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .40

Андеррайтинг синдицированных кредитов  

на российском рынке

Алексей Аркадьевич Тарасов  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .45

Некоторые социально-экономические аспекты развития  

Демократической Республики Конго

Тчибола Эйми Мyрфи Лyбеши  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .52

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

Karl Marx is Coming Back!

Zbigniew MierZwa
PhD in economics
Financial University under the Government of Russian Federation
Moscow, Russia
ZEMezhva@fa.ru

Abstract. This paper is devoted to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Volume I of Karl Marx’s 
Capital in September 1867. The aim of this paper is not analytical one—on the contrary. We would like 
to review existing positions among contemporary Marxists; to review contemporary Marxist’s literature; 
to review tendencies in different interpretations of Marx’s writings; to present some myths, misleading, 
misinterpretations and sometimes an obvious lie as concerns his economic writings. It is the main question 
about the irrelevance, inconsistency, and obsoleteness of Marx. We put the question: have the economic 
writings of Karl Marx real meaning for today? Enrique Dussel, Argentinean philosopher, claims that we are 
witnesses of beginning of the second century of Marx (1983–2083). So, is Karl Marx really coming back? 
However, we live, to use catch phrase Antonio Gramsci, when “the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”
We can rely on Marxist concepts as starting points for understanding the world today because they provide 
the best way to explain what is going on. The significance of Marx’s theory is that it so clearly spelled out 
the dynamic of capital accumulation that, much more than one might think plausible, his analysis provides 
key economic concepts from which to understand major features of the world economy today.
Keywords: Karl Marx; Capital; Marx’s theory of value; Marx’s theory of money; Marx’s theory of crisis.

Карл Маркс возвращается!

Збигнев Межва
доктор экономических наук, Финансовый университет
Москва, Россия
ZEMezhva@fa.ru

Аннотация. Статья посвящена отмечаемой в сентябре 2017 г. 150-й годовщине выхода в свет 
первого тома «Капитала» Карла Маркса. Целью этой статьи не является аналитический разбор 
экономических трудов Маркса. Напротив. Наша цель — обзор различных позиций, доминирующих 
среди марксистов; презентация современной марксистской литературы; обзор тенденции 
различных интерпретации трудов Маркса; презентация некоторых мифов, заблуждений, 
неправильной интерпретации и иногда прямо лжи относительно трудов Маркса. Основным 
вопросом является упрек в адрес Маркса о бесполезности, противоречивости и неактуальности. 
Поэтому ставим вопрос: имеют ли сегодня экономические труды Маркса реальное значение? 
Аргентинский философ Энрике Дуссель считает, что мы являемся свидетелями начала второго 
столетия Маркса (1983–2083). Так ли это, что Маркс возвращается? Однако мы живем во время, 
когда, говоря словами Антонио Грамши, старое уже погибает, а новое еще не может родиться.
И все-таки мы можем полагаться на марксистские концепции в качестве отправной точки для 
понимания мира сегодня, потому что они обеспечивают лучший способ объяснить, что происходит. 
Важность теории Маркса заключается в том, что в ней четко прописана динамика накопления капитала, 
что, в гораздо большей степени, чем можно было бы ожидать, его анализ содержит ключевые категории, 
из которых можно понять основные особенности современной мировой экономики.
Ключевые слова: Карл Маркс; Капитал; теория стоимости Маркса; теория денег Маркса; теория 
кризиса Маркса.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

INTRODUCTION

“In the analysis of economic forms, moreover,
neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of 
use.
The force of abstraction must replace both.”
Karl Marx

150 years ago, Karl Marx published the first volume of his life work, Capital: A Critique of Political 
Economy, in September 1867. Together with Volumes II, III and The Theories of Surplus Value, published after Marx’s death, this writings remains 
the most profound and challenging study of the 
logic of the capitalist system that still dominates 
our lives. However, it is obvious question: have 
the whole work of Karl Marx real meaning for today? Can we explore the relevance of Capital and 
Marx’s manuscripts to issues such as crisis, imperialism, social reproduction, class struggles, and 
communism? There is urgent need to clarify what 
Capital means today.
What can we still learn from Karl Marx at all? 
We may to ask whether Karl Marx might have been 
right after all. Much has been written since Capital 
was first published, and evens more after the demise 
of the Soviet Union and the consequent triumph of 
neoliberalism, about the irrelevance, inconsistency, 
and obsoleteness of Marx.
It is of great interest to appreciate the relevance 
of Marxist economic theory in explaining the current state of global capitalism. When Karl Marx 
wrote Capital it was the crowning achievement of 
a lifetime spent in political and theoretical struggle. 150 years after the first appearance of Capital 
Volume I, that system is grappling with the effects 
of one of the greatest crises in its history and the 
resulting political instability. Many have turned to 
Marx’s Capital seeking to understand the present 
conjuncture. However, Marx never finished this work, 
and the recent publication of his manuscripts has 
revealed both the immensity and the complexity 
of his project.
Capital must rank as one of the best known but 
least read works ever published. Indeed, most of 
us will have gleaned what we know about Capital 
through commentators or interpreters. And there 
lies the problem. Marx’s explanation of capitalist 
development is so far removed from conventional 
accounts of how our society functions, that it is 
particularly difficult to appreciate.

In America and Britain, philosophy departments 
prefer to teach about the thinkers who have proceeded from the viewpoint of the isolated contemplating individual rather than those philosophers 
who take a broader more objective perspective. 
Therefore, Descartes, Kant and Leibnitz are paid 
far more attention than Spinoza or Hegel. There are 
many works, which try to discover relation between 
Marx and Hegel, especially dialectics of motion and 
development.
The viewpoint of the standalone self-determined 
individual is the default setting for anyone considering their place in capitalist world. This means any 
analysis that is not based on this subjectivist attitude 
will seem counter-intuitive. To understand Marx is 
to think historically and in that much-abused word, 
dialectically. One cannot hope to grasp the meaning 
of Marx by applying rules of formal logic such as 
the law of the excluded middle.
Dialectical thinking instead recognizes that development is the process of both unbecoming (moving away from one state) and becoming (towards 
a different state). So that at any time any object 
may both be one thing and contain within itself 
the possibility of becoming other than what it is.
To look at society as a historically-produced 
entity with its own laws of development and to 
capture them in concepts which we can understand, 
is a formidable task. To say Marx was a genius for 
even trying to do this is uncontroversial. Nobody has 
even come close to matching the scope and detail 
of his explanation of how capitalist society works.
The first century following Marx’s death (1883–
1983) transpired first under Engels’ authority, then 
under the hegemony of the 2nd International (Kautsky, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.). The Leninist 
period of the 2nd International was brief, and it 
quickly fell under the domination of Stalinism. The 
second century of Marx (1983–2083) has begun with 
“perestroika”, with the collapse of existing socialism 
in Eastern Europe and Russia, and with the massive publication of hitherto unknown manuscripts. 
Marx, in his second century will be something 
very different from his first century. He will be 
a Marx whose critical thought will be in the hands 
of Humanity—critical of capitalism and, in a positive way (opening its democratic and creative era), 
of existing socialism. We are perhaps nearer to 
Marx than ever.
It is a question, then, of a complete rereading 
of Marx, with new eyes: as a Latin American, from 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

the growing poverty of the peripheral world, the 
underdeveloped and exploited of capitalism at the 
end of the 20th century. Marx is, in the periphery, 
today, more pertinent than in the England of the 
mid-19th century.
We are witnessing a deep crisis of the Western 
capitalist civilization—overlapping environmental, energy-, and economic crises, social exclusion, 
poverty and famines. The roots of these as well 
as other evils should be sought in an economic 
system whose basic aim is production for profit, 
and that therefore requires human and environmental exploitation, rather than the production for 
the satisfaction of everybody’s needs in harmony 
with each other and thus with nature. The thinker, 
whose work offers the sharpest tools for an analysis 
of the root causes of these and other social ills, is 
undoubtedly Marx. Marx’s work offers a solid and 
still relevant foundation upon which to further 
develop a multi-faceted theory highly significant 
to understand the contemporary world, both its 
present condition and its possible future scenario.
So, this Marx will not only be the ‘Marx of perestroika’, but the Marx of the entire second century 
(1983–2083), of the philosopher and economist, 
who critically deconstructs capitalist economics 
and reconstructs it anthropologically and ethically, 
in a democratic vision in which the responsible 
and participating individual is fully realized in the 
community and in solidarity. What is crucial is to 
describe the critical framework “from which” Marx 
criticized capitalism, since it is from that framework 
that one may criticize as well all possible future 
economic systems.

WHY ECONOMY?
Marx describes his move into economic study in 
preface to his 1859 A Contribution to the Critique 
of Political Economy: “Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated 
to philosophy and history. In the year 1842–43, 
as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, I first found 
myself in the embarrassing position of having to 
discuss what is known as material interests” he 
then claims: “I eagerly grasped the opportunity to 
withdraw from the public stage to my study.”
At the end of 1843 Marx began his studies of 
economics that continued until 1849. He received 
helpful direction during his withdraw from the public stage from reading Engels’ Outlines of a Critique of 
Political Economy published in Deutsch-Französische 

Jahrbücher on February 1844. Marx describes Engels’ “brilliant essay on the critique of economic 
categories” and even cites Engels’ document numerous times in his first volume of Capital. This early 
work by Engels contains the undeveloped founding work which points his and Marx’s early aims 
of discovering and teaching the determination of 
the categories of a society founded on private freeenterprise. Divisions of labor in social reproduction 
present classifiable positions as “bearers [Träger] 
of class-relations and interests” and reduced to 
their most extreme forms are “personifications of 
class-relations and interests” and nothing more.
In Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of 
Political Economy Marx wrote that the first work 
which he undertook to dispel the doubts assailing 
him was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian 
philosophy of right; the introduction to this work 
being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. This inquiry led him 
to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor 
political forms could be comprehended whether 
by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on 
the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following 
the example of English and French thinkers of the 
eighteenth century, embraces within the term “civil 
society”; that the anatomy of this civil society, 
however, has to be sought in political economy. 
The general conclusion at which he arrived and 
which, once reached, became the guiding principle 
of his studies.
Marx’s economic thinking first textually appears, 
briefly, for the purpose of self-clarification, in nine 
notebooks dating from 1843 to 1845 from Marx’s 
new home in Paris in his late twenties, around the 
same time when he publishes his introduction to 
his unpublished Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy 
of Right in Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher in 
February of 1844.
In February of 1845, Marx was deported from 
France and starts a joint work with Engels, never 
finished, to be titled The German Ideology, first 
worked on in Brussels. Here Marx writes an outline for the first chapter as eleven theses on Ludwig 
Feuerbach.
What is noticeable in Marx’s ‘43-‘45 period, when 
it comes to the economic categories, Marx will mostly rely and comment on economists such as Smith, 
Ricardo, and James Mill having economic categories 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

secondary supporting points to categories defining 
humanity and corresponding ethics of the “essence” 
of humankind. The economic categories Marx grapples with, and the depth that he gives them however, 
changes come 1847.
Marx will eventually attempt to transform these 
early Paris manuscripts into something more, signing a contract in February of 1845 for book titled 
A Critique of Politics and of Political Economy. In 
the same February of 1845, that Marx signs his 
contract both he and Engels publish their first joint 
work The Holy Family, a critical contribution to 
the theoretics of the young Hegelians and early 
communist thinking. Marx will get his first chance 
to publish material on economics for public eyes 
in The Holy Family. Although limited, he writes a 
section in the fourth chapter criticizing Proudhon 
on categories that he will do so more consistently 
later such as value, determination, and measure, 
but in way of course, more in line with Marx in the 
early and mid-1840s.
The emphasis of this time is not working out 
the economic categories as a point, but still Marx 
recognizes them and implements them into what 
he is trying to say. His goal is not to work out the 
movements of economic categories but critique 
the bourgeois form of the categories. Although in 
September of 1846, around five months after Marx 
and Engels mainly ended work on The German 
Ideology, Marx is told that his book contract from 
last year has been canceled due to his politics.
Come early 1847, in a flash, Marx produces what 
will become his first book, also containing his first 
statements more explicitly on economic categories. Marx’s first book is however, a long polemic 
of Proudhon’s 1846 The System of Economic Contradictions: The Philosophy of Poverty which Marx 
would counter-title: The Poverty of Philosophy. 
Marx begins writing in January 1847, he was finished 
come April; the book was published in Paris and 
Brussels in June of the same year.
Within the same year of writing and publishing 
Poverty of Philosophy, Marx produces an even more 
concentrated and independent, yet short, economic 
work appearing in text as lecture notes for what will 
be later titled: Wage-Labour and Capital, set to be 
delivered December of 1847. This will be the first 
time Marx will concretely and consistently make 
an economic work. The lecture was given the same 
month Marx and Engels were commissioned by the 
League of Communists to write the Manifesto of 

the Communist Party, which would appear February of 1848.
Marx left for London in 1849. There, every day 
beginning in 1851, in the library of the British 
Museum, he undertook a huge task of reading, of 
which he left us testimony in the more than 100 
“Notebooks” that will be more than 40 volumes 
in section IV of the MEGA 2. Up to now, we have 
volumes of “Exzerpte und Notizen“ from IV/7 
(September 1849–February 1851) to IV/31 (second 
half of 1877–1883). You can find the detailed information at http://mega.bbaw.de/struktur/abteilung_ii.
After Marx’s 1847 establishment of his economic 
thought, according to him: “The publication of the 
Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848 and 1849 and 
subsequent events cut short my economic studies, 
which I could only resume in London in 1850.” This 
is also when Marx started to basically live in the 
British Museum Library.
Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital lecture manuscripts were later worked up to become a set of 
articles in Neue Rheinische Zeitung starting in April 
1849. The series although, was never completed for 
various reasons, mainly the censorship of the paper. 
Wage-Labour and Capital would not be published 
until one year after Marx’s death in 1883, published 
as they were written in 1849. Later however, an 
edited version was republished by Engels and given 
an introduction dated April 30, 1891.
It is right, then, to see 1847 with Poverty of Philosophy and Wage-Labour to 1849 with the revising of Wage-Labour for publication as the time 
of Marx’s early serious economic thinking in text. 
Engels also says: “Marx, in the ‘40s, had not yet 
completed his criticism of political economy. This 
was not done until toward the end of the fifties.”
These 1850s manuscripts are to be edited by 
Marx into his first powerful and complex economic 
work: A Contribution to the Critique of Political 
Economy, published early 1859. The set of notebooks were later published titled: Grundrisse, appearing long after Marx and Engels’ death. Marx 
wrote his Grundrisse over the period August 1857 
to May 1858. It remained virtually unknown for 
almost a century (with the exception of its Introduction). It was translated for the first time into 
English only in 1973.
There are two translations into English of the 
whole text of Marx’s Grundrisse.
The first appeared in 1973, translated by Martin 
Nicolaus. His German source was the 1953 Dietz 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

edition (Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Rohentwurf) 1857–58, Berlin 1953). The title 
is Grundrisse, and the subtitle: Foundations of the 
Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft). After the 
“Introduction” and the main text, he adds the essay 
“Bastiat and Carey” (which in fact was written first).
The second translation appeared in the MarxEngels Collected Works (MECW), in two volumes, 
Volume 28 in 1986 (translated by Ernst Wangermann) and Volume 29 in 1987 (translators: Victor 
Schnittke and Yuri Sdobnikov). The German source 
was the new MEGA edition of the text, but the editors cite it misleadingly. They give the sources of 
the matter presented in Collected Works 28–29 as 
“Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) II, 1; II, 2, Berlin, 1976–1981.” (CW 28: xxvi). In fact the Grundrisse 
was put out in two parts: MEGA II, Band 1, Teil 1 
(1976) and Band 1, Teil 2 (1981). MEGA II Band 2 
(1980) is the post-Grundrisse volume (1858–1861) 
containing the other texts and text of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1959) 
translated in Collected Works Volume 29. Manuscripts in German were edited as:
II/1 M: Ökonomische Manuskripte 1857/58. 
(Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie) 
2., unveränd. Aufl. 2006. 29* + 1.182 S. |27 Abb. | 
ISBN978–3–05–004245–9. [1. Aufl. Teil 1: 1976, 
Teil 2: 1981.]
II/2 M: Ökonomische Manuskripte und Schriften, 
1858–1861. (Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie 
u. a.) 1980. 32* + 507 S. |19 Abb. | ISBN978–3–05–
003368–6.
Collected Works Volume 28 contains “Bastiat 
and Carey,” the “Introduction,” and the first installment of the main text, titled “Outlines of 
the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft of 
1857–58).” Volume 29 contains the second installment of the main text; additionally it includes 
the following relevant material: “Index to the 7 
Notebooks” (June 1858), “References to my own 
Notebooks” (1861), and “Draft Plan of the Chapter 
on Capital” (1860). Nicolaus does not give these 
indexes separately but makes use of them in his 
editorial apparatus. In the same volume is “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” of 
1859, together with its “Urtext” (the only English 
translation of the latter).
Although many scholars habitually use the Nicolaus translation, in my opinion it has been superseded by the newer translation in Collected Works 
28 and 29. The reasons for this judgement are:

1. The 1953 German text used by Nicolaus has 
been superseded by that in the new MEGA (1976–
81) used for the Collected Works.
2. Nicolaus mistranslates the central term ‘Verwertung’ as ‘realization’ what is wrong. The Collected 
Works correctly renders this ‘valorisation’, which is 
now the general usage (despite its being somewhat 
‘technical’), having appeared in the 1976 translation of Capital. Unless it can be shown that the 
Collected Works translation is definitely inferior in 
other respects this consideration is decisive.
3. The Nicolaus edition has no Index. The Collected Works edition has full notes and large Indexes.
Those with a special interest in the “Introduction” should seek out the one by Terrell Carver 
(translated from the 1953 German edition) in his 
“Karl Marx: Texts on Method” (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 
1975). This is because he supplies extensive editorial 
matter: his own Introduction gives a detailed history 
of Marx’s changing plans and projects prior to the 
Grundrisse; he also provides substantial notes and 
commentary on the text itself; for example, he ably 
defends his choice of ‘individuated individual’ to 
translate ‘vereinzelter Einzelne’ instead of ‘isolated 
individual’ as is usual. Unfortunately, he gives ‘bourgeois society’ where it is better to use ‘civil society’.
Marx’s 1859 Critique will unfortunately receive 
less attention as it is highly terse. Marx’s ‘59 Critique 
contains key writings on Marx’s categories in the 
mode of production in the preface. In the preface, 
Marx exposes his early plan for his multivolume 
series on bourgeois society along with brief autobiographical statements already quoted above. Marx 
makes brief comments on Hegel similar to what 
will be found in the also-famous post-face to the 
second edition of Capital. Although aside from this 
preface, Marx’s 1859 text is strictly an economic 
text. Page after page, word after word, is meant to 
describe economic categories with little exception, 
mostly contained to the beginning. The text is really 
more like an early version of the first three chapters 
of Capital volume one and an edited form of the 
economics in Marx’s 1850s notebooks preparing 
himself for this work.
Publication of Marx’s all original manuscripts is 
part of the monumental MEGA project, the comprehensive 114-volume collected works of Marx and 
Engels (in German). Each of these volumes also 
includes MEGA editors’ companion volume, called 
the Apparat (“Apparatus”), which presents a wealth 
of detailed information about the history of the 

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

manuscript being published, editorial decisions and 
variations to these decisions, further explanatory 
notes. The MEGA website is: http://mega.bbaw.de/.

AN INEXHAUSTIBLE SOURCE 
OF KNOWLEDGE

“All science would be superfluous if the outward 
appearance
and the essence of things directly coincided.”
Karl Marx

Marx’s Capital still represents the most comprehensive critique yet developed of capitalism and 
the mystified categories through which as a system it is understand. It has been discovered that 

Marx wrote four drafts of Capital, not just two 
(the Grundrisse and Capital), as was commonly 
thought. In between these two, Marx wrote two 
other fairly complete drafts of all three volumes 
of Capital—one in the Manuscripts of 1861–63 
and another in the Manuscripts of 1864–65. The 
second draft in the Manuscripts of 1861–63 is especially interesting. It includes, in addition to the 
well-known Theories of Surplus Value, a second 
draft (after the Grundrisse) of Volume 1 (Parts 
2–4), and a first draft of most of Volume 3. The 
Manuscripts of 1861–63 were published for the 
first time in their entirety in German in the MarxEngels Gesamtausgabe, abbreviated as MEGA, in 
1876–82. The English translation was published 
in 1988–94 by International Publishers, as Vol
Marx and engels Collected works copyright
In April 2014 Lawrence & Wishart asked the Marxist Internet Archive (MIA at https://www.marxists.org/) to respect his copyright and take its unlicensed version of the Marx and Engels Collected 
Works (MECW) off its website. It was only in April 2014 that Lawrence & Wishart realized the extent 
of MIA’s copyright breach, which is why they took action then and asking the MIA to take down the 
L&W copyrighted material. So, you can’t download MECW from https://www.marxists.org.
Grundrisse translated by Martin Nicolaus from you can download from https://www.marxists.
org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/grundrisse.pdf. Here are also available from this site Capital 
vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3 and vol. IV (Theories of Surplus Value), Contribution to the Critique of Political 
Economy (1859), Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (see: https://www.marxists.org/
archive/marx/works/download/index.htm).
Grundrisse:
1939–41 First German edition of Marx–Engels Institute, Moscow
1953 Second German edition of Dietz-Verlag, East Berlin
1973 English translation by Martin Nicolaus
2010 Second English translation
Some books on Grundrisse:
Carver, Terrell (Ed.). (1975). Karl Marx: Texts on Method. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bottomore, Tom, (Ed.). (1998). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, David. (2006). The Limits of Capital. London: Verso.
Lallier, Adalbert G. (1989). The Economics of Marx’s Grundrisse: An Annotated Summary. New 
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mandel, Ernest. (2015). The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx: 1843 to Capital. 
London: Verso.
Mandel, Ernest. (1970). Marxist Economic Theory. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Negri, Antonio. (1989). Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.
Postone, Moishe. (1993). Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical 
Theory. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.
Uchida, Hiroshi. (2015). Marx’s Grundrisse and Hegel’s Logic. Terrell Carber (Ed.). London: Routledge.
Bellofiore, Riccardo, Starosta, Guido, & Thomas, Peter D. (Eds.). (2013). In Marx’s Laboratory: 
Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse. Historical Materialism Book Series, vol. 48. Leiden • 
Boston: Brill.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

umes 30 to 34 of the 50-volume Marx-Engels Collected Works. These manuscripts are very rich and 
illuminating, and provide many insights into the 
logical structure of the three volumes of Capital, 
and especially about how Volume 3 fits into this 
overall structure. They are much clearer and better organized than the Grundrisse, and they contain more clarifying comments on Marx’s logical 
method than the final ‘popularized’ editions.
Enrique Dussel has written a path-breaking 
book in Spanish about Marx’s Manuscripts of 
1861–63 entitled Hacia un Marx Descondido: Un 
Commentario de las Manuscritos del 61–63, which 
was published in 1988. A translation of that book 
was edited in 2001 as Towards an Unknown Marx: 
A Commentary on the Manuscripts of 1861–1863.
Complete rereading of Marx, as proposed by 
Enrique Dussel, means the reading chronologically, 
“archeologically”, Marx’s economic works: from the 
least to the most remote drafts from the viewpoint 
of the publication of Capital. Complete rereading 
has the intention to discover diachronically the 
construction of the categories in Marx’s theory.
The fruit of such rereading by Dussel himself 
has been the three volumes that he has published 
on this subject:
Dussel, Enrique. (1985). La produccion teorica 
de Marx, un comentario a los «Grundrisse». Mexico: 
Siglo XXI (in Spanish). (Dussel, Enrique. (2009). La 
Production Théorique Marx. Un commentaire des 
Grundrisse. Paris: L’Harmattan (in French)). Second 
edition in Spanish in 1991.
Dussel, Enrique. (1988). Hacia un Marx desconocido, un comentario de los Manuscritos del 1861–63, 
Mexico: Siglo XXI (in Spanish). (Dussel, Enrique. 
(2001). Towards an Unknown Marx. А commentary 
on the Manuscripts of 1861–63. Edited with an introduction by Fred Moseley. London and New York: 
Routledge (in English))
Dussel, Enrique. (1990). El ultimo Marx (1863–
1882), y la liberation latinamericana. Mexico: 
Siglo XXI (in Spanish). (Dussel, Enrique. (2009). 
L’Ultimo Marx. Roma: Manifestolibri (in Italian))
Dussel’s trilogy on Marx’s economic manuscripts 
grew out of a comprehensive reading from start to 
finish of all of Marx’s economic manuscripts in the 
original German. Since some of these manuscripts 
had not yet at that time been published even in 
German, Dussel traveled to Berlin and Amsterdam 
to read Marx’s original manuscripts —  in Marx’s 
awful handwriting! We do not know of anyone else 

who has conducted such a thorough and systematic 
reading of all of Marx’s economic manuscripts.
Dussel’s trilogy will turn out to be one of the 
most important works in the history of Marxian 
scholarship. The uniqueness of Dussel’s contribution is that he brings a very high level of philosophical understanding to bear on Marx’s economic manuscripts, especially on the logical method employed 
by Marx in the construction of his economic theory, 
how Marx’s thinking (and his concepts) developed 
through the various manuscripts, the continuing 
influence of Hegel, etc. Indeed, it is necessary to 
understand the development of Marx’s system, as 
speaking on what is actually meant by Marx can 
depend on what year it is written in. So, we also include brief biographical overview of Marx’s writings.
Dussel’s method of exposition is to present a 
comprehensive and detailed introduction to Marx’s 
manuscripts in his (Marx’s) own words, emphasizing various themes. Dussel’s exposition follows 
Marx’s manuscripts chronically, section by section, 
including initial intuitions, detours, and digressions 
(some of which turn out to be quite significant), 
and highlights Marx’s discoveries and theoretical 
advances, as well as his confusions and difficulties. 
In this way, Dussel explains how Marx’s thinking 
developed and was clarified on a number of key issues while working on the various drafts of Capital. 
The result is an extremely valuable “reader’s guide” 
to Marx’s manuscripts, that greatly facilitates our 
understanding of their meaning and significance.
There are other attempts to present Marx’s economic writings crossing over all three volumes of 
Capital. For example:
Smith, Kenneth. (2012). A Guide to Marx’s Capital, Volume 1–3. Anthem Press.
Heinrich, Michael. (2012). An Introduction to the 
Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital. New York: 
Monthly Review Press. (Translated from German by 
Alexander Locascio, originally published as Kritik der 
politischen Ökonomie: Eine Einführung by Schmetterling Verlag GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany in 2004)
Harvey, David. (2010). A Companion to Marx’s 
Capital. Volume 1. London: Verso.
Harvey, David. (2013). A Companion to Marx’s 
Capital. Volume 2. London: Verso.
Fine, Ben & Saad-Filho, Alfredo. (2010). Marx’s 
‘Capital’. Fifth edition. London: Pluto Press.
Choonara, Joseph. (2009). Unraveling Capitalism: A Guide to Marxist Political Economy. London: 
Bookmarks.

Review of Business and Economics Studies  
 
Volume 5, Number 3, 2017

Callinicos, Alex. (2014). Deciphering Capital: 
Marx’s Capital and its Destiny. London: Bookmarks.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

The Manuscripts of 1861–63

We should see the Contribution to the Critique of 
Political Economy (Marx 1859) as the beginning 
of the Manuscripts of 1861–63. In effect, Marx first 
wrote the chapter on the commodity, and then the 
one on money, but he hesitated and promised to 
write a future “Chapter 3” on capital. It is the first 
definitive draft of what later became Part 1 of Volume 1 of Capital. It is interesting because one can 
see the development with regard to the Grundrisse 
and also the immaturity with regard to the later 
drafts of 1867 and 1873. It is worth noting that 
for ten years (from 1857 to 1867), Marx did not return to this subject of Part 1 of Volume 1. Marx’s 
draft of Part 1 for the 1867 edition shows a lack 
of theoretical advance on this subject during that 

period. For this reason, the later 1873 edition of 
Chapter 1 includes many variations, and some important ones.
What is certain is that, in August of 1861 (with 
a two year pause at that time), Marx once again 
took up his pen to undertake, in a single stretch, 
a theoretically very creative period—from August 
1861 until April 1867, now without any important 
breaks, though with some minor ones owing to 
the illnesses that continually besieged the Marx 
of London. He will write 23 notebooks (that we 
will call the Manuscripts of 1861–63), published as 
a whole for the first time, and without Engels’ or 
Kautsky’s modifications. This is a huge amount of 
material that not yet attracted sufficient attention 
of Marxian scholars.
The Manuscript of 1861–63 was published 
for the first time in its entirety in German in the 
MEGA in 1976–82. The English translation was 
published in 1988–94 by International Publishers, 
as Volumes 30 to 34 of the 50-volume Marx-Engels 
Collected Works. The manuscript is the second 

Enrique Dussel (Enrique Domingo Dussel Ambrosini) is one of the most interesting Marxist 
philosophers in the world today. He was born December 24, 1934 in the town of La Paz, in 
the region of Mendoza, Argentina. He first came to Mexico in 1975 as a political exile and 
is currently a Mexican citizen, Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Iztapalapa 
campus of the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (Autonomous Metropolitan University, 
UAM) and also teaches courses at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National 
Autonomous University of Mexico, UNAM). He has an undergraduate degree in Philosophy 
(from the Universidad Nacional de Cuyo/National University of Cuyo in Mendoza, Argentina), 
a Doctorate from the Complutense University of Madrid, a Doctorate in History from the Sorbonne in Paris, and an undergraduate degree in Theology obtained through studies in Paris 
and Münster. He has been awarded Doctorates Honoris Causa from the University of Friburg 
in Switzerland, the University of San Andrés in Bolivia, the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, the University of Santo Tomás de Aquino in Colombia, and the National University 
of General San Martin in Argentina. He is the founder with others of the movement referred 
to as the Philosophy of Liberation, and his work is concentrated in the field of Ethics and 
Political Philosophy.
Dussel has written over 40 books (in Spanish), some of which have been translated into 
English and several other languages (German, French, and Italian): The Philosophy of Liberation (1980, 1985), Ethics and Community (1988, 1993), The Invention of the Americas (1995), The 
Underside of Modernity (1996), Politics of Liberation. A critical world history (2011).
In the early 1970s Dussel became influenced by dependency theory and the writings of Emmanuel Levinas, both of which were to become major influences on his thinking. He is one of 
the primary figures along with others such as Rodolfo Kusch, Arturo Roig, and Leopoldo Zea, 
in the philosophical movement referred to as the Philosophy of Liberation.
For details see: http://enriquedussel.com/Home_en.html