Re: [OPE] peanut butter value-form theory

From: Philip Dunn <>
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 09:42:56 EDT

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:08 -0700, Paula wrote:
> Jerry said:
> > 4. When the crackers are made available for sale (and even beforehand),
> > the firms which seek to sell them _presume_ that they represent value.
> They presume this because abstract labor is embodied in the crackers.
> > If they don't sell because the product
> > now does not have a use-value, then those crackers do not represent
> > value
> If they don't sell, for whatever reason, then the value cannot be realized.
> This is the standard Marxist account as far as I know.
> Paula

Hi Paula and Jerry,

The strictly ex-post value accounting take on this says that, since the
contaminated crackers could not be sold, said crackers were never the
material bearer of value. Even though peanuts etc. were used up in
making them and useful labour performed, no constant capital could be
transferred and no labour value added since there is no commodity formed
from the contaminated crackers.

Jerry, if the contamination crackers was not detected and any ill
effects suffered by consumers were not blamed on the crackers - no
recall, no refund, I would say everything is normal from the value and
use-value point of view. In such circumstances, the crackers are the
material bearer of value, constant capital is transferred, and labour
value is added.

ope mailing list
Received on Sat Mar 28 09:44:23 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT