Re: [OPE] peanut butter value-form theory

From: Philip Dunn <>
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 10:39:38 EDT

On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 14:03 +0000, Alejandro Agafonow wrote:
> Philip D. **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.**
> In this case a loss of value occurs, the recognition of which is
> essential in a rational accounting system. So, it is indispensable to
> distinguish the reasons of the transference of no constant capital and
> the addition of no labour value, i.e. 1) Non-labor performed or 2)
> labor performed in useless commodities.
> A. Agafonow


I was claiming that there was no value to lose. The firm producing the
crackers might have imprudently recorded sales revenue, value added and
profit in its accounts. These accounts must be corrected to show that
there was no any sales revenue, value added or profit.

No doubt useful labour can be associated with the bad crackers. Money
measured labour is reduced since sales revenue is less than it would
have been if no contamination occurred.

An accounting identity:

Money measured labour = value of sales revenue less value of non-wage

ope mailing list
Received on Sat Mar 28 10:44:16 2009

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