To me, book keeping implies more than many might think, since if and only if everything is settled precisely, which means, no surplus value, nor difference between the movement of the price of the items produced and the cost ( whatever that means ) of the item, ultimately, the acruied money be distributed perfectly on the wages, materials, rents, etc etc, then income statement could perish since then the total sum of the income equals with the total sum of the cost = the amount of paid. Then there would be no movement in the banance sheet side too.
Granted, as far as I know the one who analyzied about the role of the book keeping in relationship with the Capitalistic mode of the production is K.Marx, Please refer here
So long as the individual producer of commodities keeps account only in his head (for instance, a peasant; the book-keeping tenant-farmer was not produced until the rise of capitalist agriculture), or books his expenditures, receipts, due dates of payments, etc., only incidentally, outside of his production time, it is palpably clear that this function and the instruments of labour consumed by it, such as paper, etc., represent additional consumption of labour-time and instruments which are necessary, but constitute a deduction from the time available for productive consumption as well as from the instruments of labour which functions in the real process of production, enter into the creation of products and value.
We are concerned here only with the general character of the costs of circulation, which arise out of the metamorphosis of forms alone. It is superfluous to discuss here all their forms in detail. But how forms which belong in the sphere of pure changes of the form of value and hence originate from the particular social form of the process of production, forms which in the case of the individual commodity-producer are only transient, barely perceptible elements, run alongside his productive functions or become intertwined with them — how these can strike the eye as the huge costs of circulation can be seen from just the money taken in and paid out when these operations have become independent and concentrated on a large scale as the exclusive function of banks, etc., or of cashiers in individual businesses. But it must be firmly borne in mind that these costs of circulation are not changed in character by their change in appearance.
According to him, the role of book-keeper or book-keeping, is unique especilly under the capitalistic mode of the production, as well as the deduction from expenditure on the labor-time consumed into the production of items.
Why I would like to ask this is, I am doubting if it, the role of book-keeping, is merely the so-called deduction from the expenditure on the labor-time consumed into the production of items. Since here he seems to be too much emphasizing the role of the labor time ( aka production time ).
Has anyone else analysed this deeper than he?