[OPE-L:3896] Re: Surplus-Value vs. Surplus Product

andrew kliman (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:50:25 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

A reply to Jerry's ope-l 3889.

Jerry: "what is the meaning of 'negative surplus value'? As this term is at
the heart of the current discussion (from Andrew's perspective), it needs to
be defined and understood for us to proceed."

It was defined within my numerical example in ope-l 3886. I think this is
more at the toenail of the current discussion than at its heart. I'd be
surprised if the concept of negative surplus-value were not generally
understood among listmembers.

Jerry: "I agree with your (John's) last sentence. What is needed to advance
the discussion is, again, for Andrew to define negative surplus value. After
he does that, we can have a critical discussion on that concept and its

What, pray tell, does "minus quantity of value" (Marx, quoted in ope-l 3886)
mean? I'm not interested in a "critical discussion [of this] concept and its
implications," which is a DIVERSION, whether intentional or not, from the
issues I raised, namely

(1) can anyone produce a coherent explanation of the passage from Marx in
which Marx is *not* saying that "surplus product" can be positive while
surplus-value is negative? (I have explained why the attempts of Rieu, Allin,
and Jerry to explain it in other terms don't work.)
(2) given that this *is* what Marx was saying (and I note that my explanation
of why the attempts to interpret it in different terms has gone unchallenged),
can anyone show that the passage is compatible with simultaneism?

If you want a "critical discussion [of negative surplus-value] and its
implications," be my guest, but don't drag me into it, please.

Jerry: "It is a strange 'new monetary interpretation' indeed which vacates
money from the analysis."

I have not used this term, or "monetary interpretation," to refer to my
interpretation of Marx's value theory. It is not a meaningful description of
it, and Fred has co-opted the term, in any case, for his interpretation. Nor
does my interpretation "vacate money from the analysis." Please, Jerry, stop
the hyperbole, the accusations, and the diversions. Yes, intentionally or
not, picking at the assumptions of an example meant to illustrate other things
entirely is a DIVERSION. If you don't understand why and how money is not
vacated from the analysis, and would like it explained, I'll be happy to make
a few comments.