| This question <85|162-2> overall <159|160> Birdieman: <158-4|181>. graded A |
| Question 155: Assume there are 51 butchers in a barter society, and none of them is a chess player. Does this mean that the game of chess is not one of the Particular equivalents in the Expanded form of value of meat? |
| [159-1] Birdieman: A Chess game is not one of the Particular equivalents in the expanded form of value of meat to 51 butchers to whom the game of chess has no use value. In the submissions to the class, it was proposed that perhaps one of the butchers knew somebody that played chess and could use the game as a gift. The gift would then have a use value and could be exchanged for meat. I see the question from the vantage point that the 51 butchers is a closed society and none of them play chess. This means that a Chess game has no use value to any of them and therefore will not be exchanged for meat. In this situation a Chess game is not one of the Particular equivalents in the Expanded form of value of meat. |
| Hans: In your in-class answer you had the additional sentence: No one will exchange meat that does have use value for the butchers for something that does not have use value. This is the modern mainstream way of looking at it. Marx says that meat does not have use value for the butchers, they have much too much meat, the meat represents the labor which the butchers have performed. |
|
|
|||||