| This question <66|72> overall <68|70> Hans: <68|73>. |
| 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? |
| [69] Hans: Chess Carnage Chilote [66] says: both meat and chess sets contain labor, i.e., value, therefore they are equivalent. This is right, but it is not an answer to Question 155. Question 155 does not ask whether chess sets are value, but whether in this particular society chess sets are part of the series which expresses the value of the meat. |
| What does Marx mean here by “express”? Value can only then be socially relevant if the value character of things is reflected in people's behavior, and if people's behavior in turn reinforces this value character. This is the topic of Section 3: here Marx discusses those surface activities and relations by which the value character of the goods influences individual behavior. This is what Marx means by an expression of value. He also asks the question how adequate these expressions are, i.e., whether the surface behavior induced by these expressions is indeed able to transmit signals to the core of the economy instructing it to treat all labor as equal. I recommend to re-read the passage on pp. 23-25 of the Annotations where I say some fundamental things about Marx's use of the terms “form” and “expression”. |
| Now let's go back to Question 155. In his last two sentences, Chilote switches his argument around a little and says: |
| Therefore the list of possible comparisons between commodities is endless. Any commodity can be a particular equivalent of another because of the common denominator of labor. |
| These comparisons are the surface relations which reflect and reinforce the value character of the things. Yes, any commodity can be a particular equivalent. But is a chess set one in this particular case? |
| Here is my answer: If none of the butchers plays chess, then they will also not accept chess sets for their meat, i.e., express the value of their meat in chess sets. But perhaps tomorrow one of the butchers remembers he needs a birthday present for his niece who is an avid chess player, and suddenly he is looking to exchange his meat for a chess set. The series of particular equivalents is variable and unfinished. This is why it is not a good form of value. By simply reversing it one arrives at the much better general form of value. |
|
|
|||||