At 08:15 ¿ÀÈÄ 97-01-02 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> As ever I don't have time to enter the fray, but the following detail
>> from Jerry (which reflects earlier comments from him) puzzled me:
>> > capital. In that case, profit could become negative not because of
>> > "negative surplus value" but, rather, because the capitalists were not
>> > able to realize the *transfer of value* from the constant fixed capital
>> > that they had originally anticipated.
>
Chai-on:
-------
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.
In solidarity,
Chai-on
Chai-on Lee
Faculty of Economics,
Chonnam National University,
Kwang-Ju, 500-757,
S Korea
Tel +82-62-520 7329
Fax +82-62-529 0446
E-m: conlee@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr