[OPE-L:3897] Re:Surplus Value vs. Surplus Product

RYU DONG MI (rieudm@kiaeri.co.kr)
Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:21:32 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

I will reply to Andrew's [OPE-L 3882; 3886] by using his numerical
example in [OPEL-3886].

1. Andrew wrote in [OPE-L 3882]
>> Rieu also wrote, "As values of input and output are evaluated at the same point of time, the falling of the value of yarn will not automatically show an increase of the rate of surplus value. Namely, the value of cotton will decrease, too."i>
I don't understand this. Could you please clarify your point, Rieu?<<

If we change Andrew's corn-producing example to cotton-producing one,
the simultaneist
interpretation is as follows :
year1 : 20C(yarn) + 15V + 5S = 40(cotton)
year2 : 6C(yarn) + 2.4V + 3.6S = 12(cotton)
My argument above quoted was to show that Marx's passage quoted by
Andrew can be explained with logical consistency (even!) in the
simultaneist interpretation. Namely, the falling of the value of
yarn(20C-->6C) is compatible with the decrease of surplus
value(5S-->3.6S) because the value of cotton itself diminishes(40-->12).

2. Andrew wrote in [OPE-L 3886]
>>......how do you account for what he[=Marx] DID write? In other words, please explain how a "surplus product" may NOT represent a surplus-value. Please explain how a "surplus product" can represent a deduction from value?
I can explain all this clearly and simply, with no hocus pocus...<<
thereafter, he explained it by using his example.

What Andrew showed in his example is nothing other than "the rate of
profit historically computated" is negative.
Namely, assuming value = price,
year2 : 25C + 10V + (-4S) = 31
So the historical rate of profit is (-4)/(25+10) = (-4/35).
But, as for me as a simultaneist(or dualist?), this has nothing to do
with "negative surplus value". In the simultaneist interpretation,
positivity of surplus product is necessary and sufficient condition for
positive surplus value. This is well known as Morishima(or Okishio)'s
so-called "Fundamental Marxian Theorem". Therefore, NO SIMULTANEIST NEED
TO EXPLAIN "how a surplus product may not represent a surplus value".

3. Although I don't know much about delicate nuances of German language,
in order to clarify the issue, I will quote Marx's passage from
Marx-Engels Werke edition.
"Es gewinnt dadurch den Anschein, dass die Rente nicht aus dem Preis des
Agrikulturprodukts, sondern aus seimer Masse entspringt, also nicht aus
gesellschaftlichen Verhaeltnissen, sondern aus der Erde. Wir haben schon
frueher gezeigt, dass, obgleich der Mehrwert sich in einem
ES KANN EIN MINUS VON WERT DARSTELLEN."(MEW, vol.25, p,796 : emphasis
To my knowledge, "ein Minus von Wert" cannot be translated into "minus
quantity of value". (Of course, I don't have much philological
background. Anyone on this list will show me(or us) chronology of MEW &
English edition or correct English translation of this passage?)
I think, what the passage tried to say is, not more than that the
quantitative change is not proportional to the change of value