[OPE-L:3934] Re: More on negative surplus value

Chai-on Lee (conlee@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr)
Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:48:48 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

At 08:15 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.


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 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