marxism-digest V1 #3487

MIYACHI TATSUO miyachi9 at SPAMgctv.ne.jp
Wed May 9 15:33:44 MDT 2001


On language

 We have debated about language, and this theme is very difficult.
Arguing language as means of communication,or as simply relationship without
poles between relation (as Saussure argued) has deficit. Rather, I argue
that language is social relationship having two poles. Let analogize Marx's
argument about form of value with language. In the equivalent form of
value," the bodily form of value becomes its value form. But, mark well,
that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any commodity B, only when some
Some other commodity A enters into a value relation with it, and then only
within the limits of this relation. Since no commodity can stand in the
relation of equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into
the expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled to choose some
other commodity fro its equivalent, and to accept the use value ,that is to
say, the bodily shape of that other commodity as the from of its own
value....A sugar-loaf being a body, is heavy, and therefore has weight: but
we can neither see not touch this weight. We then take various pieces of
iron, whose weight has determined beforehand. The iron, as iron, is no more
the form of manifestation of weight, than is the sugar-loaf. Nevertheless,
in order to express the sugar-loaf as so much weight, we put it into a
weight-relation with the iron. In this relation, the iron officiates as a
body representing nothing but weight. A certain quantity of iron therefore
serves as the measure of weight of the sugar, and represents, in relation to
the sugar-loaf, weight embodied, the form of manifestation of weight. This
part is played by iron only within this relation, into which the sugar or
any other body, whose weight has to be determined , enters with the iron.
Were they not body heavy, they could not enter into this relation, and the
one could therefore not serve as the expression of the weight of the other.
When we throw both into the scales, we see in reality, that as weight they
are both the same, and that,therefore, when taken in proper proportions,
they have the same weight. Just as the substance iron,as a measure of
weight, represents I relation to sugar-loaf weight alone, so, in our
expression of value, the material object,coat, in relation to the linen,
represents value alone."  Here Marx argue that in equivalent form of value,
some bodily material represents some social value in common with opposite
pole of relation. Let consider language as representation of some bodily
material, then we can get language as doubly determined, in other words, as
physically and socially determined, expression of some species. So language
cannot express individual material, rather express specific species. From
this, fetishism of language occurs,because a word represent only specific
species,in other word, some universal including  the specific  rather than
express individual material.
Please my homepage " Alternative psychiatry"-
http://sites.netscape.net/miyachi9/homepage
And also see URL- http://homepage1.nifty.com/office-ebara/

                MIYACHI TATSUO
                Psychiatric Department
                Komaki municipal hospital
                1-20,johbushi. Komaki city
                Aichi Pref.
                JAPAN







More information about the Marxism mailing list