What Cannot Be Sold

A thing, before it has a price, has a body. Grain feeds, iron holds, cloth covers—each in its own way, by what it is and what nothing else could be in its place. Then exchange arrives, setting them on the same scale and asking only one thing: how much? The question seems harmless. Yet it performs a cut—it sets aside everything that made grain not iron.

Marx lodges this duality at the heart of every commodity, from the opening pages of Capital.

As use-values, commodities are, first of all, of different qualities; as exchange-values, they can only be of different quantities.

Two ways of seeing the same object. As use-value, a thing is what it is concretely—the grain we grind, the garment we wear—and its utility, Marx insists, “exists only in” the body of the commodity: it clings to its matter, incommensurable with any other. As exchange-value, it is nothing but a quantity: so much of this equals so much of that. For equivalence to be possible, what makes them incomparable must first be erased: “we abstract from the use-value of commodities when we exchange them,” and every exchange “is even characterized by this abstraction.” The measure does not lie; it abstracts. It retains from grain and iron only what they share—enough to weigh one against the other, never enough to say what each is.

What remains, at the edge of calculation, is a whole order of useful things that do not enter it.

A thing can be a use-value without being a value. It is enough for it to be useful to man without resulting from his labor. Such are the air, natural meadows, virgin soil, etc.

Air, meadow, the soil that bears the grain: useful without price, because no labor has crystallized in them. Indispensable to all production, yet invisible to the measure that governs it. What sustains everything remains, for the scale, precisely nothing.

What is use-value in Marx?

It is the concrete utility of a thing, determined by the properties of its body: grain nourishes, cloth covers. It is qualitative, unique to each object, and realized only in use. Marx opposes it to exchange-value, purely quantitative, which abstracts from this utility to make things comparable.

Yet Marx does not cross a certain threshold. His quarrel is with the abstraction that erases use, not with use itself: he defends the body of the thing against the figure that overlays it, holding the useful as the firm ground from which price takes flight. Another voice, born far from there, does not stop at this ground.

Laozi names pu (樸) the block of wood not yet carved—the whole before the cut. In the twenty-eighth chapter, the sage returns to it:

he will return to perfect simplicity (to the Tao). When perfect simplicity (the Tao) has spread, it has shaped beings.

As long as the block remains whole, it is good for nothing in particular and holds all its possible forms. To carve it into a utensil is to fix it as one object and lose the others. Where Marx defends concrete use against the price that abstracts it, Laozi goes further back: even shaping a thing for use is already a fall from the whole. He does not plead for use against measure; he returns before both, to the block that has not yet been divided. Two distinct gestures, and two grounds beneath them: one saves the singular body of things from the figure that levels them; the other preserves the whole before any single form is taken from it.

And yet, beneath the difference, the same intuition holds. Whether measure equalizes—the price that makes grain and iron commensurable—or division separates—the block cut into countable utensils—neither says what the thing is. Grain exceeds its market price, knotted wood exceeds the use made of it. What a thing is overflows both what it is worth on a scale and what it serves for. Reality outstrips measure. Two hands pushing aside the same veil of figures—one to restore the object’s body, the other to return it to its wholeness.

The scale weighs the grain, not the field that bore it nor the hand that harvested it; the price counts the wood, not the gnarled tree that took a century to grow crooked. Something always remains on the tray when the figure has fallen—what measure never touched.

À lire aussi

• 6 juin 2026·philosophie-occidentaleLa table qui danseMarx décrit la marchandise dans la langue de la théologie. Le vieux remède des sages — désirer moins — n'y peut rien.
• 13 juin 2026·philosophie-occidentaleLe fruit sauvage et le bois brutMontaigne retourne le mot « barbare » sur celui qui le prononce ; Lao-Tseu revient au bloc d’avant la taille. Deux défiances du regard qui prend l’ouvré pour la mesure.
• 3 juin 2026·transversalLe moyeu videLao-Tseu sur l'usage du non-être, en regard de Sénèque
• 20 juin 2026·transversalAssezLe suffisant n'est pas une quantité. Épicure le mesure en bornant le désir ; Lao-Tseu cesse seulement de courir après. Deux mains différentes sur la même richesse.