AlthoughIstartfromMarx,Igobeyondhim.SomybookaimstoreconstructMarx’sworkinthespiritofasystematic-dialecticallogic.Idonottakeaposi-tionhereon‘whatMarxreallymeant’,stilllesson‘whatHegelreallymeant’,noryeton‘whetherMarxgotHegelrightorwrong’.1WhatIaimatisentirelysub-stantive,eventhoughIdrawheavilyuponmyreadingsofHegelandofMarx.InsofarasIappropriatetheirideasformypurposesitiseasytodiscerntheread-ingsIfavour;butnothinghangsonthis.InsofarasIattributetocapitalinpartanidealrealitywithaproblematicrelationshiptothematerialitsubsumes,Iwishthistheorytobeassessedinitsownterms.Itsplausibilitydoesnotdependonwhether,inborrowingfromHegelandMarx,Ihavereadthemcorrectly.EvenifIhavereadthemincorrectly–andIfreelyadmittorevisionatvariouspoints–itisthefruitfulnessofthe‘incorrect’readingsforunderstandingcapitalthatistobejudged.WhatIpresenthereshouldbeunderstood,then,asmyownview,notasHegel’sorMarx’s.Thisbookexemplifiesthe‘homologythesis’,namelythatthelogicofcapitalmaybeexhibitedbyreferencetoHegel’slogic.Inparticular,Itakethearchi-tectonicof bothorderstobeinpartthesame.2(Forexample,seetheTableattheendof thisIntroduction.)Thisdoesnotrequiremetotakeapositionon‘whatHegelreallymeant’.TonySmitharguesthatHegel’smetaphysicallan-guagedisguisesasophisticatedsocialontology.3But,forme,itisprecisely‘themetaphysicalHegel’thatisof interestinthatcapitalmodelsinitsformtheall-pervasivegenerationof itsmomentsfromitself.Thepresentationof cap-italinanorderedmanneris,then,aquestionof actualisingitinasequenceoflogical levelsof complexity, which I argue picks up nested internal relations.