A thought experiment:
(I) Proposition: for negative surplus value to have any meaning it must
*be* surplus value.
(II) Suppose that $100 is advanced for $50 c and $50 v at the outset of
period t. At the end of period t, assume that all commodities
produced are sold at their value for $90.
(III) Now suppose that the loss of $10 represents (negative) surplus
value.
[now comes the good part]
(IV) Since there was no surplus labor time performed by living labor in
time t it necessarily follows that if there is any surplus value (in
negative form) it must have been created by *means of production*.
(V) Ergo, if we maintain the proposition that there can be negative
surplus value we must reject the proposition that living labor
[productively employed by capital] is the only source of surplus
value.
Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta!
This is a result that Steve K might be willing to accept, but I wonder:
are our temporalist comrades also willing to accept this result?
In solidarity [and mischief], Jerry