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

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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/146544609X12537556703313
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

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.


Added to PP index

Total views
23 ( #495,253 of 2,518,735 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #116,897 of 2,518,735 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes