An odd translation of the following passage on the necessary expression of the value-form by Fowkes that substitutes ‘material and non-mental’ for objective (‘sachlichen.’)
‘On the other hand, it is in fact necessary that value, as opposed to the multifarious objects of the world of commoditites, should develop into this form, a material and non- mental one, but also a simple social form.’ (194)
I’m not quite sure what a material form, non-mental form, so luckily Ehrbar renders it more understandable:
‘On the other hand, it is in fact necessary that value, as opposed to the multifarious objects of the world of commoditites, should develop into this form which is objective and gives no hint at its conceptual origin, but which is also a simple social form.’
However, as Jura pointed out in the comments, ‘sachlichen’ can also be translated as thing-like empahsizing the social role of things as measures of value:
‘On the other hand, it is in fact necessary that value, as opposed to the multifarious objects of the world of commoditites, should develop into this form which is thing-like and gives no hint at its conceptual origin, but which is also a simple social form.’
Hmm. “Sachlich” is thing-like or “thingish”. I mean, value is “objective” (“gegenständlich”) as well, of course, but here I think the thing-like quality is what is important: in the equivalent form, value is expressed as a certain quantity of a thing.
Weird. My fragmentary German and even more fragmentary memory recalled that marx made a distinction between thing-like and objective but i remembered this as dinglich and gegenständlich.” So when I checked Ehrbar’s translation on leo — http://dict.leo.org/ende/index_en.html#/search=saclich&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on — and one of the meanings came up as objective, I assumed he was right. In the end I agree with you about what’s important, and think the sentence reads even better with thing-like.