There are many who would agree with Lenin's claim that it is first necessary to understand Hegel's Logic if one wishes to understand Marx's Capital² Indeed, Terrell Carver has pointed out that Lenin's belief that "a study of Hegel is essential to an understanding of Marx's is "now common place".³ There is, however, a line of reasoning which flatly denies the truth of Lenin's dictum. From this point of view, Marx's economic thought might be said to stand alone. A familiarity with Hegel's metaphysical system is by no means a necessary precondition for an adequate grasp of the basic principles of Marxist economic theory. Patrick Murray, for example, tells us that, against the advice of "Lenin's famous aphorism", a teacher of his once "insisted that one need not have read all of Hegel's Logic, or even a little of Hegel, in order to perfectly well understand Capital". Murray himself is of the opinion that there is at least some truth in this contention.⁴ Following the example provided by Klaus Hartmann's work on Hegel, we might describe such an interpretation of Marx as being a "non-metaphysical" interpretation.⁵ Although in the final analysis this interpretation of Marx's thought is not in our view defensible, nevertheless it is certainly of some interest. Even if in the end we reject it, a critical examination of it certainly does help to clarify our understanding of the relationship which exists between Marx and Hegel regarding questions of scientific method in the sphere of political economy.