Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:3886]:
> "IT IS NOT TRUE ... REPRESENTS A
> SURPLUS-VALUE" indicates that the "surplus product" may represent something
> other than a positive surplus-value, that is, a zero or negative
> surplus-value.
Declining and/or zero surplus value I can understand. What, though, is the
meaning of "negative surplus value"? Would this mean that labor is
exploiting capital???!!!
> In the next sentence, therefore, when Marx writes that "It can
> represent a DEDUCTION FROM VALUE," the final three words indicate that the
> positive "surplus product" can represent a negative surplus-value.
A deduction from value does not mean that there can be negative surplus
value.
> I can explain all this clearly and simply, with no hocus pocus.
> Assume that corn is produced by means of
> seed-corn and living labor, and that workers are paid in corn, before
> production. <snip>
Hocus pocus.
Had Marx wanted to develop a corn model, he might have written _Das Korn:
A Critique of Agricultural Economics_ (that's an inside joke, right
Andrew? :-)). Don't you think that *money* has to be incorporated into the
model and that c, v, and s all take a monetary form?
In solidarity, Jerry