A reply to Allin's ope-l 3898.
Allin writes:
"Marx doesn't say anything about negative surplus value in the quotation
Andrew brought forward, and I don't see much point in discussing a forced
interpretation of the passage."
He then immediately goes on to discuss it:
"I don't have the passage to hand right now, but as I recall Marx says
something like "a surplus product (i.e. a mere
*increase* in quantity)" (emphasis added), which suggests that the whole thing
is implicitly in first-differences and
has nothing to do with negative surplus value."
The passage in question (Ch. 47 of _Capital_ III, "The Genesis of Capitalist
Ground Rent" [p. 923, Vintage, emphases added]) reads:
"We have already shown how, even though surplus-value is expressed in a
surplus product, IT IS NOT TRUE CONVERSELY THAT ANY SURPLUS PRODUCT IN THE
SENSE OF A MERE INCREASE IN THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCT REPRESENTS A
SURPLUS-VALUE. It can represent a DEDUCTION FROM VALUE."
Marx does refer to an increase: the surplus product is here (though not in
general) defined as an increase in the "quantity of the product." Thus, the
quantity of the product (output), minus the quantity of the physical inputs
used up in its production, is the surplus product.
This does not, however, provide any support to the notion that Marx is
"implicitly" taking first differences in the sense in which Allin means it.
First, Marx is here considering ONE SINGLE PERIOD, and saying that the surplus
product of that one period does not have to represent a surplus-value. Allin
and Rieu, conversely, are comparing TWO DIFFERENT PERIODS. Second, the
difference to which Marx refers is the difference between the quantity of
output and the quantities of inputs, whereas Allin's and Rieu's first
differences are the difference between the surplus products of two different
periods and the difference between the surplus-values of two different
periods. "First differences" usually means the first differences in the
magnitudes of a *single* variable, and that's how Allin is using it. But Marx
is referring to a difference between two different variables, output and
inputs, when he speaks of an increase.
The wording may be confusing, so let me put the thing symbolically. Let s(t)
be the surplus-value of period t, and K(t) and X(t) be the physical quantities
of inputs and output, respectively. Then, the surplus product of period t,
SP(t) is defined as SP(t) = X(t) - K(t). *This* is the increase to which Marx
refers, and he is saying that "SP(t) > 0 AND s(t) not > 0" is possible.
What Allin and Rieu have constructed is the following: "SP(t+1) - SP(t) > 0
AND s(t+1) - s(t) < 0." It is possible to satisfy this condition without
satisfying Marx's. My claim is that simultaneism can't satisfy Marx's and is
thus incompatible with his value theory.
Lest there still be any doubt as to what Marx is saying, let's examine the
passage in question a bit more closely. Note, firstly, that a non-forced
interpretation of this passage must have as its object the "converse" of the
concept that surplus-value is expressed in a surplus product. "An increase in
surplus product together with a decrease in surplus-value" --- "SP(t+1) -
SP(t) > 0 AND s(t+1) - s(t) < 0" --- doesn't fulfill this requirement.
"Surplus product expresses surplus-value" --- "IF SP(t) > 0, THEN s(t) > 0"
--- does so. Secondly, the converse must be negated ("it is not true").
Hence, a non-forced interpretation must be able to explain the case in which
"surplus product DOES NOT express surplus-value," i.e., "SP(t) > 0 AND s(t)
not > 0."
What, pray tell, is "forced" about this? It is a quite literal reading. Or
is "forced" to become the all-purpose epithet used to dismiss an
interpretation with a wave of the hand?
Happy holidays.
Andrew Kliman