Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Marxism and Natural Limits: A Rejoinder

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Historical Materialism

[I want to extend gratitude to Ted Benton for his thoughtful reply which, as always, raises many important questions. This rejoinder begins by explaining why I chose Benton's 1989 article as an object of critique, and by responding to his complaint about the argumentative style of my work. I then consider the question of alternative ‘readings’ of Marx and Engels – a discussion which acts as a kind of bridge to our substantive disagreements. In terms of the latter, I proceed to show that Benton does not effectively respond to my argument that his interpretation and critique of Marx and Engels suffer from a material/social dualism that is inconsistent with the dialectical approach developed by the founders of Marxism. Due to their crucial importance for ecology and Marxism, Benton's replies on the labour-process, natural conditions, and eco-regulation are treated in a separate section. I conclude with a brief discussion of ecology and class., I want to extend gratitude to Ted Benton for his thoughtful reply which, as always, raises many important questions. This rejoinder begins by explaining why I chose Benton's 1989 article as an object of critique, and by responding to his complaint about the argumentative style of my work. I then consider the question of alternative ‘readings’ of Marx and Engels – a discussion which acts as a kind of bridge to our substantive disagreements. In terms of the latter, I proceed to show that Benton does not effectively respond to my argument that his interpretation and critique of Marx and Engels suffer from a material/social dualism that is inconsistent with the dialectical approach developed by the founders of Marxism. Due to their crucial importance for ecology and Marxism, Benton's replies on the labour-process, natural conditions, and eco-regulation are treated in a separate section. I conclude with a brief discussion of ecology and class.]

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156920601100414730
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156920601100414730
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156920601100414730
2001-01-01
2017-03-30

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Historical Materialism — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation