Trapped inside the Box? Five Questions for Ben Fine

Historical Materialism 18 (1):131-149 (2010)

Abstract

Responding to comments by Ben Fine in relation to the concept of the degree of separation among workers, this article argues that Fine confuses Marx’s levels of analysis and thus cannot distinguish between necessity and contingency; fails to grasp the problematic character of Marx’s discussion of relative surplus-value once we remove the assumption of a given standard of necessity; and accordingly remains trapped in a ‘Ricardian Box’ that Marx himself was able to escape.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,855

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
23 (#498,252)

6 months
6 (#116,791)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Debating the 'New' Imperialism.Ben Fine - 2006 - Historical Materialism 14 (4):133-156.
Locating Financialisation.Ben Fine - 2010 - Historical Materialism 18 (2):97-116.
Banking Capital and the Theory of Interest.Ben Fine - 1985 - Science and Society 49 (4):387 - 413.
From Freakonomics to Political Economy.Ben Fine & Dimitris Milonakis - 2012 - Historical Materialism 20 (3):81-96.