In [OPE-L:3934], Chai-On Lee wrote
> If the transfer of value is failed, according to marx, it meant that the
> concrete character of the direct labor equiped with fixed capital must have
> been superfluous and/or socially unnecessary. The labor produced no value,
> hence no surplus value, and thus no negative surplus-value either. The labor
> that organized the production was an act of consumption (not of production),
> which leads to a loss on capital. This is my opinion.
Yes. With regard to the OPE-L discussion on negative surplus value, I
entirely agree to your point.
However, you have defined the value of constant inputs as their
production prices(or average of purchasing price?) in your aritcle in
Cambridge Journal of Economics(1993). i.e.
v = pA + L (not v=vA+L)
Is this definition compatible with your argument above?
I don't think so.
Rather, your definition CAN ONLY BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF
NEGATIVE SURPLUS VALUE like Andrew's.
Numerical example :
Let the production prices of constant inputs be 1,000$.
If a certain capitalist using these inputs with 250$ living labour
realized only 750$, namely
1,000C + 250V + ?S = 750
How do you explain this?
If we apply your value definition consistently, in the above example,
surplus value must be -500(=750-1000-250), I think. And this explanation
might be Andrew's.
Rieu