| This question <72|83> overall <72|74> Hans: <69|76>. |
| 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? |
| [73] Hans: Incarnation Tolkien [72] gives two arguments that my answer [69] was wrong. In his view, chess boards would be Particular equivalents of meat even if none of the butchers plays chess. Tolkien's first argument is a Marx quote: |
| As stated in 156:1;V156:1 “Every commodity, such as coat, tea, iron, etc., counts, in the expression of value of the linen, as an equivalent and therefore a physical incarnation of value.” |
| Here Marx says “every commodity,” and by “equivalent” Marx means “Particular equivalent”, as his next sentence (not quoted by Tolkien) makes clear. This is therefore a relevant quote, and I thank Tolkien for digging it out. I still think Marx means here every commodity in his example equivalent form given in 155:1, not every commodity that exists. |
| Tolkien's second argument is: |
| If they exchange the meat for a chess board, then exchanged the board for a good knife, the butchers might be able to produce meat more efficently. |
| This is certainly a valid point. If by a fluke certain exchange possibilities are never offered, there are so many other exchanges in the Particular form that one can construct exchanges involving three or more commodities to fill in the missing proportions. This is certainly a valid way to answer question 155. |
| Tolkien does not bring the above Marx quote without explaining it, which is a good thing, because it helps the reader to understand Marx and in this way I can also see whether you understand it right. Tolkien says: |
| In this particular case the physical incarnation of value lies within labor. |
| According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “incarnation” is “embodiment in flesh” or “assumption of a bodily form.” Tolkien's above sentence says therefore that the value of the linen is embodied in labor. This is not true. Let me explain. Linen is a value because labor was spent to produce it. This happened in the core of the economy. How does the surface know about it? Because the linen weaver is willing to accept all the other things in exchange: coat, tea, coffee, wheat, gold, iron. All these different use values are now the incarnations of the value of the linen. Marx uses the word “incarnation” because the invisible value takes on an exterior, tangible form, the form of a use value. |
| Tolkien's submission is an A especially because he challenged my own answer with good arguments. I also liked it that he at least tried to explain the Marx quote although it was not quite right. |
|
|
|||||