Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:3882]:
> Rather, Marx is saying that surplus-value can be *negative*
> even if a *positive* "surplus product" exists.
I think this is really stretching the point. Marx didn't say anything in
the passage that Andrew cited in #3876 about the possibility of negative
surplus value. Since the surplus product must appear in the market as
value, it is quite possible that an increase in the surplus product,
measured in physical terms, can happen at the same time as a decrease in
surplus value. Yet, the possibility of *decreasing* value and surplus
value does not imply the possibility of *negative* surplus value.
In solidarity, Jerry