What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism and Problems of Linguistics
CONTENTS Concerning Marxism in Linguistics Concerning Certain Problems of Linguistics Reply to Comrades Notes
64 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1951
6 people are currently reading
427 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Stalin
540 books432 followersJoseph Stalin, originally Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, was a Soviet revolutionary, politician and statesman who became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953).
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 7, 2020
“Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism”
Stalin’s work in Marxism and Problems of Linguistics delves into the theories presented by his readers and peers on linguistics, and how Marxism would apply to that field. While I would say I learned a Marxist grasp on this field of knowledge I had no real need to think about, i would go as far as to say this book taught me also how to use the science of Marxism to critically examine different materialist conditions and issues in life. Stalin also delves into what Marxism is at the end of these writings,
“Marxism is the science of the laws governing the development of nature and society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses, the science of the victory of socialism in all countries, the science of building communist society. As a science, Marxism can not stand still, it developed and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by the new experience, new knowledge — consequently some of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical risks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism.”
Anytime I learn anything in life, I’ll think back to this. That’s Marxism baby.
Stalin’s work in Marxism and Problems of Linguistics delves into the theories presented by his readers and peers on linguistics, and how Marxism would apply to that field. While I would say I learned a Marxist grasp on this field of knowledge I had no real need to think about, i would go as far as to say this book taught me also how to use the science of Marxism to critically examine different materialist conditions and issues in life. Stalin also delves into what Marxism is at the end of these writings,
“Marxism is the science of the laws governing the development of nature and society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses, the science of the victory of socialism in all countries, the science of building communist society. As a science, Marxism can not stand still, it developed and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by the new experience, new knowledge — consequently some of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical risks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism.”
Anytime I learn anything in life, I’ll think back to this. That’s Marxism baby.
October 30, 2020
I read Сталин, Josef Jugashvili, in the Peking edition, Foreign Policy Press, 1972.*
To everyone's relief, and interest, Stalin argues that language is NOT a superstructure in the economic system--such as government, political institutions, or legal, religious, artistic and philosphical institutions. Those must be completely changed under Marxism.
But language does NOT have to be changed completely.
He critiques one Marr who holds that thought precedes language, that one can think without it. Impossible, I say. And Stalin says Marr "risks idealism"/ Marxism by saying that.
*Russian title: Относительно Марксизма в Языкознании
To everyone's relief, and interest, Stalin argues that language is NOT a superstructure in the economic system--such as government, political institutions, or legal, religious, artistic and philosphical institutions. Those must be completely changed under Marxism.
But language does NOT have to be changed completely.
He critiques one Marr who holds that thought precedes language, that one can think without it. Impossible, I say. And Stalin says Marr "risks idealism"/ Marxism by saying that.
*Russian title: Относительно Марксизма в Языкознании
April 4, 2021
Language ain’t superstructure nor valid praxis.
It is an instrument and no more. Yes, it manifests cultural things and can vary according geographical and historical contexts, but it in itself is not the essence of those contexts: it is the vehicle of those elements and no more.
Funny how Stalin in this little text invalidates structuralist and post-structuralist linguistics.
This is clear evidence of how dialectics can show us how even language functions.
Without a doubt, comrade Stalin was definitely marxist, leninist and heir of the communist torch in his time.
It is an instrument and no more. Yes, it manifests cultural things and can vary according geographical and historical contexts, but it in itself is not the essence of those contexts: it is the vehicle of those elements and no more.
Funny how Stalin in this little text invalidates structuralist and post-structuralist linguistics.
This is clear evidence of how dialectics can show us how even language functions.
Without a doubt, comrade Stalin was definitely marxist, leninist and heir of the communist torch in his time.
December 26, 2023
This book was not great but it was okay. There were some parts of the book that I really enjoyed like Stalin mentioning “Socialism in One Country” and calling those who want to destroy the old railroads and to build new “proletarian railroads” “cavemen” lol
Though this discussion seems outdated and will not probably be intriguing to the contemporary reader. The discourse is by no means unmeaningful but it’s a bit boring. I wish Stalin had mentioned the misogyny in languages and how this is a part of the superstructure.
Though this discussion seems outdated and will not probably be intriguing to the contemporary reader. The discourse is by no means unmeaningful but it’s a bit boring. I wish Stalin had mentioned the misogyny in languages and how this is a part of the superstructure.
February 2, 2015
basic premise is that uncle joe invented language and that anyone who disagrees you go to gulag.
August 15, 2022
The base is the economic structure of society at the given stage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and the political, legal and other institutions corresponding to them.
Every base has its own corresponding superstructure. The base of the feudal system has its superstructure, its political, legal and other views, and the corresponding institutions;
In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Take, for example, Russian society and the Russian language. In the course of the past thirty years the old, capitalist base has been eliminated in Russia and a new, socialist base has been built. Correspondingly, the superstructure on the capitalist base has been eliminated and a new superstructure created corresponding to the socialist base. The old political, legal and other institutions, consequently, have been supplanted by new, socialist institutions. But in spite of this the Russian language has remained basically what it was before the October Revolution.
Further, the superstructure is a product of the base, but this by no means implies that it merely reflects the base, that it is passive, neutral, indifferent to the fate of its base, to the fate of the classes, to the character of the system. On the contrary, having come into being, it becomes an exceedingly active force, actively assisting its base to take shape and consolidate itself, and doing its utmost to help the new system to finish off and eliminate the old base and the old classes
Language is not a product of one or another base, old or new, within the given society, but of the whole course of the history of the society and of the history of the bases for many centuries. It was created not by some one class, but by the entire society, by all the classes of the society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for the satisfaction of the needs not of one particular class, but of the entire society, of all the classes of the society.
Hence the functional role of language, as a means of intercourse between people, consists not in serving one class to the detriment of other classes, but in equally serving the entire society, all the classes of society.
In this respect, while it differs in principle from the superstructure, language does not differ from instruments of production, from machines, let us say, which are as indifferent to classes as is language and may, like it, equally serve a capitalist system and a socialist system.
Further, the superstructure is the product of one epoch, the epoch in which the given economic base exists and operates. The superstructure is therefore short-lived; it is eliminated and disappears with the elimination and disappearance of the given base.
Language, on the contrary, is the product of a whole number of epochs, in the course of which it takes shape, is enriched, develops and is smoothened. A language therefore lives immeasurably longer than any base or any superstructure.
Indeed, what necessity is there, after every revolution, for the existing structure of the language, its grammatical system and basic stock of words to be destroyed and supplanted by new ones, as is usually the case with the superstructure?
The superstructure is not directly connected with production, with man’s productive activity. It is connected with production only indirectly, through the economy, through the base.
The superstructure therefore reflects changes in the level of development of the productive forces not immediately and not directly, but only after changes in the base, through the prism of the changes wrought in the base by the changes in production. This means that the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and restricted.
Language, on the contrary, is connected with man’s productive activity directly, and not only with man’s productive activity, but with all his other activity in all his spheres of work, from production to the base, and from the base to the superstructure. For this reason language reflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the base.
Not only did these empires not have, they could not have had a single language common to the whole empire and understood by all the members of the empire. They were conglomerations of tribes and nationalities, each of which lived its own life and had its own language.
Later, with the appearance of capitalism, the elimination of feudal division and the formation of national markets, nationalities developed into nations, and the languages of nationalities into national languages. History shows that national languages are not class, but common languages, common to all the members of each nation and constituting the single language of that nation.
References are made to Marx, and the passage from his article St. Max is quoted which says that the bourgeois have “their own language,” that this language “is a product of the bourgeoisie” that it is permeated with the spirit of mercantilism and huckstering. Certain comrades cite this passage with the idea of proving that Marx believed in the “class character” of language and denied the existence of a single national language
Marx, consequently, did recognize the necessity of a single national language, as a higher form, to which dialects, as lower forms, are subordinate.
What, then, can this bourgeois language be which Marx says “is a product of the bourgeoisie”? Did Marx consider it as much a language as the national language, with a specific linguistic structure of its own? Could he have considered it such a language? Of course, not. Marx merely wanted to say that the bourgeois had polluted the single national language with their hucksters’ lingo, that the bourgeois, in other words, have their hucksters’ jargon.
It thus appears that these comrades have misrepresented Marx. And they misrepresented him because they quoted Marx not like Marxists but like dogmatists, without delving into the essence of the matter.
Certain comrades conclude from this passage that Engels denied the necessity of a common, national language, that he believed, consequently, in the “class character” of language.
It is obvious that the quotation is inappropriate, because Engels here speaks not of “class languages” but chiefly of class thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion, politics. It is perfectly true that the thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion and politics of bourgeois and proletarians are directly antithetical. But what has this to do with national language, or the “class character” of language? Can the existence of class antagonisms in society serve as an argument in favour of the “class character” of language, or against the necessity of a single national language? Marxism says that a common language is one of the cardinal earmarks of a nation, although knowing very well that there are class antagonisms within the nation.
The first mistake is that they confuse language with superstructure…
But I have already said that language and superstructure are two different concepts, and that a Marxist must not confuse them.
The second mistake of these comrades is that they conceive the opposition of interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the fierce class struggle between them, as meaning the
disintegration of society, as a break of all ties between the hostile classes.
At one time there were “Marxists” in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, “proletarian” railways built. For this they were nicknamed “troglodytes”.
It goes without saying that such a primitive-anarchist view of society, of classes, of language has nothing in common with Marxism. But it undoubtedly exists and continues to prevail in the minds of certain of our muddled comrades.
It is of course wrong to say that, because of the existence of a fierce class struggle, society has split up into classes which are no longer economically connected with one another in one society. On the contrary, as long as capitalism exists, the bourgeois and the proletarians will be bound together by every economic thread as parts of a single capitalist society.
Consequently, however sharp the class struggle may be, it cannot lead to the disintegration of society. Only ignorance of Marxism and complete failure to understand the nature of language could have suggested to some of our comrades the fairy-tale about the disintegration of society, about “class” languages, and “class” grammars.
Reference is further made to Lenin, and it is pointed out that Lenin recognized the existence of two cultures under capitalism — bourgeois and proletarian — and that the slogan of national culture under capitalism is a nationalist slogan. All this is true and Lenin is absolutely right here. But what has this to do with the “class character” of language?
The mistake these comrades make here is that they identify and confuse language with culture. But culture and language are two different things. Culture may be bourgeois or socialist, but language, as a means of intercourse, is always a language common to the whole people and can serve both bourgeois and socialist culture.
When Lenin spoke of two cultures, he proceeded precisely from the thesis that the existence of two cultures cannot lead to the negation of a single language and to the formation of two languages, that there must be a single language.
When the Bundists accused Lenin of denying the necessity of a national language and of regarding culture as “non-national,” Lenin, as we know, vigorously protested and declared that he was fighting against bourgeois culture, and not against national languages, the necessity of which he regarded as indisputable. It is strange that some of our comrades should be trailing in the footsteps of the Bundists.
As to a single language, the necessity of which Lenin is alleged to deny, it would be well to pay heed to the following words of Lenin:
“Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity of language and its unimpeded development form one of the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commercial intercourse appropriate to modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its separate classes.”
It follows that our highly respected comrades have misrepresented the views of Lenin.
Reference, lastly, is made to Stalin. The passage from Stalin is quoted which says that “the bourgeoisie and its nationalist parties were and remain in this period the chief directing force of such nations.”
This is all true. The bourgeoisie and its nationalist party really do direct bourgeois culture, just as the proletariat and its internationalist party direct proletarian culture.
Do not these comrades know that national language is a form of national culture, that a national language may serve both bourgeois and socialist culture?
It is generally recognized that no science can develop and flourish without a battle of opinions, without freedom of criticism.
Marx and Engels were much more modest: they held that their dialectical materialism was a product of the development of the sciences, including philosophy, in earlier periods.
But perhaps language could be included in the category of the productive forces of society, in the category, say, of instruments of production?
Does this circumstance provide ground for including language in the category of instruments of production? No, it does not.
Was N. Y. Marr right in including language in the category of instruments of production? No, he certainly was not.
To put it more plainly, people possessing instruments of production can produce material wealth, but those very same people, if they possess a language but not instruments of production, cannot produce material wealth. It is not difficult to see that were language capable of producing material wealth, wind-bags would be the richest men on earth.
Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material, on the basis of language terms and phrases. Bare thoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the “natural matter” of language, do not exist. “Language is the immediate reality of thought” (Marx).
I think that “formalism” was invented by the authors of the “new doctrine” to facilitate their struggle against their opponents in linguistics.
In the history of mankind, spoken language has been one of the forces which helped human beings to emerge from the animal world, unite into communities, develop their faculty of thinking, organize social production, wage a successful struggle against the forces of nature and attain the stage of progress we have today.
Your letter tacitly proceeds from two premises: from the premise that it is permissible to quote the work of this or that author apart from the historical period of which the quotation treats, and secondly, from the premise that this or that conclusion or formula of Marxism, derived as a result of studying one of the periods of historical development, holds good for all periods of development and therefore must remain invariable.
I must say that both these premises are deeply mistaken.
In the forties of the past century when there was no
monopoly capitalism as yet, when capitalism was developing more or less smoothly along an ascending line, spreading to new territories it had not yet occupied, and the law of uneven development could not yet fully operate, Marx and Engels concluded that a socialist revolution could not be victorious in one particular country, that it could be victorious only as a result of a joint blow in all, or in most, civilized countries. This conclusion subsequently became a guiding principle for all Marxists.
However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, especially in the period of the first world war, when it became clear to everyone that pre-monopoly capitalism had definitely developed into monopoly capitalism, when rising capitalism had become dying capitalism, when the war had revealed the incurable weaknesses of the world imperialist front, and the law of uneven development predetermined that the proletarian revolution would mature in different countries at different times, Lenin, proceeding from Marxist theory, came to the conclusion that in the new conditions of development, the socialist revolution could fully prove victorious in one country taken separately, that the simultaneous victory of the socialist revolution in all countries, or in a majority of civilized countries, was impossible owing to the uneven maturing of the revolution in those countries, that the old formula of Marx and Engels no longer corresponded to the new historical conditions.
Engels in his Anti-Dühring said that after the victory of the socialist revolution, the state is bound to wither away.
However, the study of the world situation of our time led Soviet Marxists to the conclusion that in the conditions of capitalist encirclement, when the socialist revolution has been victorious only in one country, and capitalism reigns in all other countries, the land of the victorious revolution should not weaken, but in every way strengthen its state, state organs, intelligence organs and army, if that land does not want to be crushed by the capitalist encirclement. Russian Marxists came to the conclusion that Engels’ formula has in view the victory of socialism in all, or in most, countries, that it cannot be applied in the case where socialism is victorious in one country taken separately and capitalism reigns in all the other countries.
Marxists, however, cannot but know that the textualists and Talmudists are mistaken, for both these formulas are correct, though not absolutely, each being correct for its time: the formula of Soviet Marxists — for the period of the victory of socialism in one or several countries; and the formula of Engels — for the period when the consecutive victory of socialism in separate countries will lead to the victory of socialism in the majority of countries and when the necessary conditions will thus have been created for the application of Engels’ formula.
That is always the case with textualists and Talmudists who do not delve into the essence of the matter, quote mechanically and irrespective of the historical conditions of which the quotations treat, and invariably find themselves in a hopeless situation.
The formula given by Stalin in his pamphlet, in the part where it speaks of the crossing of languages, refers to the epoch prior to the victory of socialism on a world scale, when the exploiting classes are the dominant power in the world; when national and colonial oppression remains in force; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations are consolidated by differences between states; when, as yet, there is no national equality of rights; when the crossing of languages takes place as a struggle for the domination of one of the languages; when the conditions necessary for the peaceful and friendly cooperation of nations and languages are as yet lacking; when it is not the cooperation and mutual enrichment of languages that are on the order of the day, but the assimilation of some and the victory of other languages. It is clear that in such conditions there can be only victorious and defeated languages
As regards the other formula by Stalin, taken from his speech at the Sixteenth Party Congress, in the part that touches on the merging of languages into one common language, it has in view another epoch, namely, the epoch after the victory of socialism on a world scale, when world imperialism no longer exists; when the exploiting classes are overthrown and national and colonial oppression is eradicated; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations is replaced by mutual confidence and rapprochement between nations; when national equality has been put into practice; when the policy of suppressing and assimilating languages is abolished; when the cooperation of nations has been established, and it is possible for national languages freely to enrich one another through their cooperation.
Consequently, the two different formulas correspond to two different epochs in the development of society, and precisely because they correspond to them, both formulas are correct — each for its epoch.
The textualists and Talmudists regard Marxism and separate conclusions and formulas of Marxism as a collection of dogmas, which “never” change, notwithstanding changes in the conditions of the development of society.
But this can be the conviction only of people who see the letter of Marxism, but not its essence, who learn by rote the texts of conclusions and formulas of Marxism, but do not understand their meaning.
As a science, Marxism cannot stand still, it develops and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge — consequently some of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical tasks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism.
Every base has its own corresponding superstructure. The base of the feudal system has its superstructure, its political, legal and other views, and the corresponding institutions;
In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Take, for example, Russian society and the Russian language. In the course of the past thirty years the old, capitalist base has been eliminated in Russia and a new, socialist base has been built. Correspondingly, the superstructure on the capitalist base has been eliminated and a new superstructure created corresponding to the socialist base. The old political, legal and other institutions, consequently, have been supplanted by new, socialist institutions. But in spite of this the Russian language has remained basically what it was before the October Revolution.
Further, the superstructure is a product of the base, but this by no means implies that it merely reflects the base, that it is passive, neutral, indifferent to the fate of its base, to the fate of the classes, to the character of the system. On the contrary, having come into being, it becomes an exceedingly active force, actively assisting its base to take shape and consolidate itself, and doing its utmost to help the new system to finish off and eliminate the old base and the old classes
Language is not a product of one or another base, old or new, within the given society, but of the whole course of the history of the society and of the history of the bases for many centuries. It was created not by some one class, but by the entire society, by all the classes of the society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for the satisfaction of the needs not of one particular class, but of the entire society, of all the classes of the society.
Hence the functional role of language, as a means of intercourse between people, consists not in serving one class to the detriment of other classes, but in equally serving the entire society, all the classes of society.
In this respect, while it differs in principle from the superstructure, language does not differ from instruments of production, from machines, let us say, which are as indifferent to classes as is language and may, like it, equally serve a capitalist system and a socialist system.
Further, the superstructure is the product of one epoch, the epoch in which the given economic base exists and operates. The superstructure is therefore short-lived; it is eliminated and disappears with the elimination and disappearance of the given base.
Language, on the contrary, is the product of a whole number of epochs, in the course of which it takes shape, is enriched, develops and is smoothened. A language therefore lives immeasurably longer than any base or any superstructure.
Indeed, what necessity is there, after every revolution, for the existing structure of the language, its grammatical system and basic stock of words to be destroyed and supplanted by new ones, as is usually the case with the superstructure?
The superstructure is not directly connected with production, with man’s productive activity. It is connected with production only indirectly, through the economy, through the base.
The superstructure therefore reflects changes in the level of development of the productive forces not immediately and not directly, but only after changes in the base, through the prism of the changes wrought in the base by the changes in production. This means that the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and restricted.
Language, on the contrary, is connected with man’s productive activity directly, and not only with man’s productive activity, but with all his other activity in all his spheres of work, from production to the base, and from the base to the superstructure. For this reason language reflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the base.
Not only did these empires not have, they could not have had a single language common to the whole empire and understood by all the members of the empire. They were conglomerations of tribes and nationalities, each of which lived its own life and had its own language.
Later, with the appearance of capitalism, the elimination of feudal division and the formation of national markets, nationalities developed into nations, and the languages of nationalities into national languages. History shows that national languages are not class, but common languages, common to all the members of each nation and constituting the single language of that nation.
References are made to Marx, and the passage from his article St. Max is quoted which says that the bourgeois have “their own language,” that this language “is a product of the bourgeoisie” that it is permeated with the spirit of mercantilism and huckstering. Certain comrades cite this passage with the idea of proving that Marx believed in the “class character” of language and denied the existence of a single national language
Marx, consequently, did recognize the necessity of a single national language, as a higher form, to which dialects, as lower forms, are subordinate.
What, then, can this bourgeois language be which Marx says “is a product of the bourgeoisie”? Did Marx consider it as much a language as the national language, with a specific linguistic structure of its own? Could he have considered it such a language? Of course, not. Marx merely wanted to say that the bourgeois had polluted the single national language with their hucksters’ lingo, that the bourgeois, in other words, have their hucksters’ jargon.
It thus appears that these comrades have misrepresented Marx. And they misrepresented him because they quoted Marx not like Marxists but like dogmatists, without delving into the essence of the matter.
Certain comrades conclude from this passage that Engels denied the necessity of a common, national language, that he believed, consequently, in the “class character” of language.
It is obvious that the quotation is inappropriate, because Engels here speaks not of “class languages” but chiefly of class thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion, politics. It is perfectly true that the thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion and politics of bourgeois and proletarians are directly antithetical. But what has this to do with national language, or the “class character” of language? Can the existence of class antagonisms in society serve as an argument in favour of the “class character” of language, or against the necessity of a single national language? Marxism says that a common language is one of the cardinal earmarks of a nation, although knowing very well that there are class antagonisms within the nation.
The first mistake is that they confuse language with superstructure…
But I have already said that language and superstructure are two different concepts, and that a Marxist must not confuse them.
The second mistake of these comrades is that they conceive the opposition of interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the fierce class struggle between them, as meaning the
disintegration of society, as a break of all ties between the hostile classes.
At one time there were “Marxists” in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, “proletarian” railways built. For this they were nicknamed “troglodytes”.
It goes without saying that such a primitive-anarchist view of society, of classes, of language has nothing in common with Marxism. But it undoubtedly exists and continues to prevail in the minds of certain of our muddled comrades.
It is of course wrong to say that, because of the existence of a fierce class struggle, society has split up into classes which are no longer economically connected with one another in one society. On the contrary, as long as capitalism exists, the bourgeois and the proletarians will be bound together by every economic thread as parts of a single capitalist society.
Consequently, however sharp the class struggle may be, it cannot lead to the disintegration of society. Only ignorance of Marxism and complete failure to understand the nature of language could have suggested to some of our comrades the fairy-tale about the disintegration of society, about “class” languages, and “class” grammars.
Reference is further made to Lenin, and it is pointed out that Lenin recognized the existence of two cultures under capitalism — bourgeois and proletarian — and that the slogan of national culture under capitalism is a nationalist slogan. All this is true and Lenin is absolutely right here. But what has this to do with the “class character” of language?
The mistake these comrades make here is that they identify and confuse language with culture. But culture and language are two different things. Culture may be bourgeois or socialist, but language, as a means of intercourse, is always a language common to the whole people and can serve both bourgeois and socialist culture.
When Lenin spoke of two cultures, he proceeded precisely from the thesis that the existence of two cultures cannot lead to the negation of a single language and to the formation of two languages, that there must be a single language.
When the Bundists accused Lenin of denying the necessity of a national language and of regarding culture as “non-national,” Lenin, as we know, vigorously protested and declared that he was fighting against bourgeois culture, and not against national languages, the necessity of which he regarded as indisputable. It is strange that some of our comrades should be trailing in the footsteps of the Bundists.
As to a single language, the necessity of which Lenin is alleged to deny, it would be well to pay heed to the following words of Lenin:
“Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity of language and its unimpeded development form one of the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commercial intercourse appropriate to modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its separate classes.”
It follows that our highly respected comrades have misrepresented the views of Lenin.
Reference, lastly, is made to Stalin. The passage from Stalin is quoted which says that “the bourgeoisie and its nationalist parties were and remain in this period the chief directing force of such nations.”
This is all true. The bourgeoisie and its nationalist party really do direct bourgeois culture, just as the proletariat and its internationalist party direct proletarian culture.
Do not these comrades know that national language is a form of national culture, that a national language may serve both bourgeois and socialist culture?
It is generally recognized that no science can develop and flourish without a battle of opinions, without freedom of criticism.
Marx and Engels were much more modest: they held that their dialectical materialism was a product of the development of the sciences, including philosophy, in earlier periods.
But perhaps language could be included in the category of the productive forces of society, in the category, say, of instruments of production?
Does this circumstance provide ground for including language in the category of instruments of production? No, it does not.
Was N. Y. Marr right in including language in the category of instruments of production? No, he certainly was not.
To put it more plainly, people possessing instruments of production can produce material wealth, but those very same people, if they possess a language but not instruments of production, cannot produce material wealth. It is not difficult to see that were language capable of producing material wealth, wind-bags would be the richest men on earth.
Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material, on the basis of language terms and phrases. Bare thoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the “natural matter” of language, do not exist. “Language is the immediate reality of thought” (Marx).
I think that “formalism” was invented by the authors of the “new doctrine” to facilitate their struggle against their opponents in linguistics.
In the history of mankind, spoken language has been one of the forces which helped human beings to emerge from the animal world, unite into communities, develop their faculty of thinking, organize social production, wage a successful struggle against the forces of nature and attain the stage of progress we have today.
Your letter tacitly proceeds from two premises: from the premise that it is permissible to quote the work of this or that author apart from the historical period of which the quotation treats, and secondly, from the premise that this or that conclusion or formula of Marxism, derived as a result of studying one of the periods of historical development, holds good for all periods of development and therefore must remain invariable.
I must say that both these premises are deeply mistaken.
In the forties of the past century when there was no
monopoly capitalism as yet, when capitalism was developing more or less smoothly along an ascending line, spreading to new territories it had not yet occupied, and the law of uneven development could not yet fully operate, Marx and Engels concluded that a socialist revolution could not be victorious in one particular country, that it could be victorious only as a result of a joint blow in all, or in most, civilized countries. This conclusion subsequently became a guiding principle for all Marxists.
However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, especially in the period of the first world war, when it became clear to everyone that pre-monopoly capitalism had definitely developed into monopoly capitalism, when rising capitalism had become dying capitalism, when the war had revealed the incurable weaknesses of the world imperialist front, and the law of uneven development predetermined that the proletarian revolution would mature in different countries at different times, Lenin, proceeding from Marxist theory, came to the conclusion that in the new conditions of development, the socialist revolution could fully prove victorious in one country taken separately, that the simultaneous victory of the socialist revolution in all countries, or in a majority of civilized countries, was impossible owing to the uneven maturing of the revolution in those countries, that the old formula of Marx and Engels no longer corresponded to the new historical conditions.
Engels in his Anti-Dühring said that after the victory of the socialist revolution, the state is bound to wither away.
However, the study of the world situation of our time led Soviet Marxists to the conclusion that in the conditions of capitalist encirclement, when the socialist revolution has been victorious only in one country, and capitalism reigns in all other countries, the land of the victorious revolution should not weaken, but in every way strengthen its state, state organs, intelligence organs and army, if that land does not want to be crushed by the capitalist encirclement. Russian Marxists came to the conclusion that Engels’ formula has in view the victory of socialism in all, or in most, countries, that it cannot be applied in the case where socialism is victorious in one country taken separately and capitalism reigns in all the other countries.
Marxists, however, cannot but know that the textualists and Talmudists are mistaken, for both these formulas are correct, though not absolutely, each being correct for its time: the formula of Soviet Marxists — for the period of the victory of socialism in one or several countries; and the formula of Engels — for the period when the consecutive victory of socialism in separate countries will lead to the victory of socialism in the majority of countries and when the necessary conditions will thus have been created for the application of Engels’ formula.
That is always the case with textualists and Talmudists who do not delve into the essence of the matter, quote mechanically and irrespective of the historical conditions of which the quotations treat, and invariably find themselves in a hopeless situation.
The formula given by Stalin in his pamphlet, in the part where it speaks of the crossing of languages, refers to the epoch prior to the victory of socialism on a world scale, when the exploiting classes are the dominant power in the world; when national and colonial oppression remains in force; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations are consolidated by differences between states; when, as yet, there is no national equality of rights; when the crossing of languages takes place as a struggle for the domination of one of the languages; when the conditions necessary for the peaceful and friendly cooperation of nations and languages are as yet lacking; when it is not the cooperation and mutual enrichment of languages that are on the order of the day, but the assimilation of some and the victory of other languages. It is clear that in such conditions there can be only victorious and defeated languages
As regards the other formula by Stalin, taken from his speech at the Sixteenth Party Congress, in the part that touches on the merging of languages into one common language, it has in view another epoch, namely, the epoch after the victory of socialism on a world scale, when world imperialism no longer exists; when the exploiting classes are overthrown and national and colonial oppression is eradicated; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations is replaced by mutual confidence and rapprochement between nations; when national equality has been put into practice; when the policy of suppressing and assimilating languages is abolished; when the cooperation of nations has been established, and it is possible for national languages freely to enrich one another through their cooperation.
Consequently, the two different formulas correspond to two different epochs in the development of society, and precisely because they correspond to them, both formulas are correct — each for its epoch.
The textualists and Talmudists regard Marxism and separate conclusions and formulas of Marxism as a collection of dogmas, which “never” change, notwithstanding changes in the conditions of the development of society.
But this can be the conviction only of people who see the letter of Marxism, but not its essence, who learn by rote the texts of conclusions and formulas of Marxism, but do not understand their meaning.
As a science, Marxism cannot stand still, it develops and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge — consequently some of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical tasks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism.
December 31, 2024
For a man who opened with an admission that he is uninformed in the area of linguistics, Stalin sure does manage to write rather prolifically about the field in this collection of essays. Sometimes he happens across something true.
I am distinctly impressed at the assertion that there is no thought outside of language, supported by a citation of Marx. No need for neurolinguistics or psycholinguistics when Marx already knew the truth, I suppose.
The assertion that sign languages are in no way languages was also just. Wildly incorrect. Love love love.
Reading this was a waste of my time, but filled me with newfound respect for my mother, who went through higher education partially at a time when ideological garbage like this was often required reading.
I am distinctly impressed at the assertion that there is no thought outside of language, supported by a citation of Marx. No need for neurolinguistics or psycholinguistics when Marx already knew the truth, I suppose.
The assertion that sign languages are in no way languages was also just. Wildly incorrect. Love love love.
Reading this was a waste of my time, but filled me with newfound respect for my mother, who went through higher education partially at a time when ideological garbage like this was often required reading.
November 26, 2025
Il compagno Stalin detta la linea contro il relativismo linguistico di Classe
May 24, 2020
Totalitarismus in Buchform. Mit diesem Aufsatz griff Stalin in eine wissenschaftliche Debatte von Sprachphilosophen und Linguisten ein und beendete sie damit. Da Neusprech äußerst wichtig für ein totalitäres Regime ist, kann es keine kritische Sprachwissenschaft dulden. Man findet hier keine marxistische Ansicht auf die Sprachwissenschaft. Sucht man diese, sollte man lieber auf Bachtin und Adam Schaff zurückgreifen.
September 2, 2025
Consisting an article printed in a June, 1950 issue of the newspaper Pravda and a few pieces of correspondence connected with that article, Stalin's Marxism and Problems of Linguistics is, in the first place, an elaboration of the Marxist teaching in linguistics (as one could guess by the name) detailing from the perspective of dialectical and historical materialism how languages form and develop over time and, moreover, the place they have in the identity of nations in line with the Marxist understanding of content and form in culture. Because of Stalin's elaboration also on the place of languages in national culture, this work also represents a valuable contribution to the Marxist treasury on the national question.
But undoubtedly the most underrated part of this work today is its contributions to Marxist theory on dialectical and historical materialism and the base-superstructure. Although brief, Stalin, through his analysis of linguistic development and the identities of nations, gives piercing insight into the character of kingdoms and empires in the past centuries such as those of Alexander the Great and Cyrus demonstrating how the communities under them eventually became nations and not their empires themselves. Stalin also gives a stern rebuff to formulaic dogmatists who erroneously assert that all dialectical changes must unfold along the course of gradual quantitative changes followed by an explosion and qualitative change, noting that there are many fields of study where this explosive change does not occur. Stalin's contributions to our understanding of the base-superstructure, likewise, cannot be overstated for in this work Stalin lays bare that implements of production (machines and the like) exist outside of the base-superstructure relationship for it is the class ownership of the means of production and not the means of production themselves that form the base and so, likewise, language, as a kind of tool for the transaction of social relationships between persons must also exist independent of the base-superstructure.
It is lamentable that today this outstanding work of Stalin's which offers crucial contributions to several important fields is overlooked alongside Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. since several of the questions Stalin here dwells on, particularly questions concerning the base-superstructure and dialectical materialism, are routinely vulgarised and distorted by modern opportunism. And this can be no mistake either since this work, alongside Stalin's Economic Problems..., undoubtedly was to serve as part of the political basis for the purge of the Bolshevik Party planned for 1953 directed at the Khrushchev-Beria-Malenkov bloc and many of the errors of Marr and his followers would be repeated by Khrushchev's leading ideologists. On the whole, this book is a very important contribution to Marxist theory for the several fields it contributes to and it absolutely must be studied by all students of Marxism and rightly taken from its currently overlooked position - placed back into the curriculum of Marxism.
But undoubtedly the most underrated part of this work today is its contributions to Marxist theory on dialectical and historical materialism and the base-superstructure. Although brief, Stalin, through his analysis of linguistic development and the identities of nations, gives piercing insight into the character of kingdoms and empires in the past centuries such as those of Alexander the Great and Cyrus demonstrating how the communities under them eventually became nations and not their empires themselves. Stalin also gives a stern rebuff to formulaic dogmatists who erroneously assert that all dialectical changes must unfold along the course of gradual quantitative changes followed by an explosion and qualitative change, noting that there are many fields of study where this explosive change does not occur. Stalin's contributions to our understanding of the base-superstructure, likewise, cannot be overstated for in this work Stalin lays bare that implements of production (machines and the like) exist outside of the base-superstructure relationship for it is the class ownership of the means of production and not the means of production themselves that form the base and so, likewise, language, as a kind of tool for the transaction of social relationships between persons must also exist independent of the base-superstructure.
It is lamentable that today this outstanding work of Stalin's which offers crucial contributions to several important fields is overlooked alongside Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. since several of the questions Stalin here dwells on, particularly questions concerning the base-superstructure and dialectical materialism, are routinely vulgarised and distorted by modern opportunism. And this can be no mistake either since this work, alongside Stalin's Economic Problems..., undoubtedly was to serve as part of the political basis for the purge of the Bolshevik Party planned for 1953 directed at the Khrushchev-Beria-Malenkov bloc and many of the errors of Marr and his followers would be repeated by Khrushchev's leading ideologists. On the whole, this book is a very important contribution to Marxist theory for the several fields it contributes to and it absolutely must be studied by all students of Marxism and rightly taken from its currently overlooked position - placed back into the curriculum of Marxism.
January 5, 2021
I need to fact check this article, for example look up n.y. marr, marr's fall, the other articles published in pradva about linguistics etc. This could be 4 stars, but there's a big problem: Stalin isn't a linguist, he's more generally social studies.
Secondly he kinda throws deaf-mutes & sign language under the bus without recognizing that sign language can be a form of writing & that written language has been a means of communication across different languages & dialects for a long time, such as we see with Mandarin, Latin, and Arabic, and Plains Indians Hand Language. Also like how in USA due to a lack of sign language/hand language proficiency but widespread literacy & keyboards & stationery, we write stuff out too.
Soviet Deaf activism is something I've seen talked about a lot in Soviet history circles. In my own lifetime it kind of resembles both the anti-bullying activism of both the disabled & the lgbtq+. Granted, queerphobia was a problem & 1 that Stalin contributed to, but still. So this is an example of how new information changes our approaches.
Lastly I find the use of talmudism as probably anti-semitic, but in the casual bigotry way. I feel similar when hearing manichaeism be used instead of binarism & exorsexism etc. Also why does Italian American pride day get called Columbus day? Why do we need these specific examples instead of generalized language? I think he was saying this in general when saying how language is more collaborative & generalized, but still.
So it's kind of like when you're getting with the program but you're still rather ignorant. It's like the almost politically correct redneck meme, which again is caracture instead of generalized, but you work with what you got.
That being said there were words I didn't understand when he was critiquing n.y. marr's underdevelopment of becoming marxist. I'll need to look those up & reflect on them.
My favorite quote: "[...] were language capable of producing material wealth, wind-bags would be the richest men on earth."
Secondly he kinda throws deaf-mutes & sign language under the bus without recognizing that sign language can be a form of writing & that written language has been a means of communication across different languages & dialects for a long time, such as we see with Mandarin, Latin, and Arabic, and Plains Indians Hand Language. Also like how in USA due to a lack of sign language/hand language proficiency but widespread literacy & keyboards & stationery, we write stuff out too.
Soviet Deaf activism is something I've seen talked about a lot in Soviet history circles. In my own lifetime it kind of resembles both the anti-bullying activism of both the disabled & the lgbtq+. Granted, queerphobia was a problem & 1 that Stalin contributed to, but still. So this is an example of how new information changes our approaches.
Lastly I find the use of talmudism as probably anti-semitic, but in the casual bigotry way. I feel similar when hearing manichaeism be used instead of binarism & exorsexism etc. Also why does Italian American pride day get called Columbus day? Why do we need these specific examples instead of generalized language? I think he was saying this in general when saying how language is more collaborative & generalized, but still.
So it's kind of like when you're getting with the program but you're still rather ignorant. It's like the almost politically correct redneck meme, which again is caracture instead of generalized, but you work with what you got.
That being said there were words I didn't understand when he was critiquing n.y. marr's underdevelopment of becoming marxist. I'll need to look those up & reflect on them.
My favorite quote: "[...] were language capable of producing material wealth, wind-bags would be the richest men on earth."
April 22, 2024
En la concepción de Stalin, se tiende a ocupar el término superestructura como sinónimo de Estado, y sólo se desarrolla su planteamiento en Acerca del Problema de la Lingüística (1950). Ahí postulará que toda base de cada modo de producción posee su superestructura, “La superestructura la constituyen las concepciones políticas, jurídicas, religiosas, artísticas y filosóficas de la sociedad y las instituciones políticas, jurídicas, etc., etc., que les corresponden.” (p. 3) es decir, como un objeto externo (!) completamente dependiente, “Si se modifica o se destruye la base, se modifica o se destruye a continuación su superestructura; si nace una nueva base, nace a continuación la superestructura correspondiente." (p. 6) con el deber de existencia de asistir a la base “La superestructura es creada por la base precisamente para que la sirva, para que la ayude activamente a tomar cuerpo y a afianzarse” (p. 20). Podemos decir que este enfoque es bastante precario, dado que cosifica las relaciones sociales, se las conecta como objetos mutuamente externos, y por sobre todo, no se explicita lo que media entre la base y la superestructura, “sólo es así”.
Lo más peligroso de esta concepción, es que fue la más socializada. Si uno va al "Manual de marxismo-leninismo" y al "Manual de materialismo histórico" de la AC(URSS) de los 50's, y busca específicamente los apartados de base y superestructura, sólo aparece como referencia este manual, y las dos citas cliché de Marx y Engels de Contribución a la Crítica de la Economía Política.
Lo más peligroso de esta concepción, es que fue la más socializada. Si uno va al "Manual de marxismo-leninismo" y al "Manual de materialismo histórico" de la AC(URSS) de los 50's, y busca específicamente los apartados de base y superestructura, sólo aparece como referencia este manual, y las dos citas cliché de Marx y Engels de Contribución a la Crítica de la Economía Política.
March 5, 2023
Dil alt yapı unsuru mu üst yapı unsuru mudur? Alt yapı değişirse dil de değişmeli midir? Bir ulus içinde ki küçük topluluklar lehceleriyle bir dilin tohumunu mu oluşturmuş oluyor? O toplum içinde bulunduğu ulustan ayrılacak olursa Lehçeleri yeşerir ve yeni bir dil mi olur? Dil temel sözcük dağarcı ve dibilgisi sisteminden oluşur ve bu sistem zamanın gerekliliklerine gore yeni kelimeler kazanıp kaybederek evrilir mi? Dil alt yapılar, üst yapılar gibi kısa sürelerde kurulup degistirilebilecek sistem değildir. Dil birikimdir, hafizadir. Silinmemesi için dikkatli olunmalıdır. Bu kitabı okurken hem dil, dilve devlet sistemi ilişkisi hakkında bakış açısı kazanırken hem de Stalin'in soru cevaplama tarzını izlemek güzeldi. Önce net cevap. Sonra sabırlı ve ikna edici açıklamalar. Savunduğu şeye ne kadar hakim olduğunu, karşı olduğu düşüncelere ne kadar hakim olduğunu, düşüncelerinin ne kadar dayanıklı ve sistemli olduğunu gördüm. Benim ve birçok insanın ne savunduğu ne karşısında durduğu düşüncelere hakim olmamak gibi bir sorunumuz var.
August 7, 2023
Well Premier Stalin seems a little out of his depth here. As he admits at the start he wasn't really a linguist. Oddly though, this didn't prove to be an issue on his other piece where he does a great job of arguing why materialism is generally the right word to use. Here he wants to discuss Japhetic theory and how even Marxists have misunderstood it. I'm not saying he's wrong here, I don't understand it well enough to agree or disagree with what hes saying but I think he does a very weak job of trying to convince you either way.
December 31, 2023
altogether pretty interesting, stalin's rebuttal of the japhetic theory is mostly sound (the mention of aristocratic penchants for french in england and russia is fun to read about) and mentions the cherry-picking on marr's part. still interesting to ponder substrates and superstrates through a class struggle/marxist lens (the indo-aryan superstrate in mitanni for instance) but it definitely makes more sense to view in the common/public sense championed by stalin here
September 8, 2021
im urlaub gelesen; sehr interessant, muss bald nochmal gründlicher lesen!
July 20, 2023
1954 edition 😳
August 4, 2024
Curious read, however to the best of my knowledge this book was wrote just before his stroke, therefore it can be rather random and sprattatic at times, never the less it was still informative!
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews