Marxism and Problems of Linguistics

A series of articles written by Stalin from June to July 1950 which discussed the questions of linguistics in Pravda. It was first published in Pravda issue No. 214, August 2, 1950.

In August 1950, the work was published as a single volume book under the title of “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics”. The Chinese translation is included in the Vol. II of Selected Works of Stalin.

In this book, Stalin, based on Marxist philosophy, discussed about following questions in the form of answering these questions:

Firstly, Stalin gave a negative answer to the question whether linguistics is an economic superstructure on the base. Stalin pointed out that 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. Superstructure promotes the formation and consolidation of the base and changes with it; superstructure is indirectly connected with production through the intermediary of the base. Language and superstructure have different ways of production, different length of life and different scope of activity, in this respect language radically differs from the superstructure.

Secondly, Stalin gave a negative answer to the question whether language has always been the language of class. Stalin pointed out that the class character of language formula is erroneous and non-Marxist. Language, as a means of intercourse, always was and remains the single language of a society, common to all its members. Marxism says that a common language is one of the cardinal earmarks of a nation. The existence of dialects and jargons does not negate but confirms the existence of a language common to the whole of the given people, of which they are offshoots and to which they are subordinate

Thirdly, the characteristic features of language. Stalin pointed out that language is one of those social phenomena which operate throughout the existence of a society. It arises and develops with the rise and development of a society. It dies when the society dies. Apart from society there is no language. Accordingly, language and its laws of development can be understood only if studied in inseparable connection with the history of society, with the history of the people and who are the creators and repositories of language. Language did not develop by the destruction of existing languages and the creation of new ones, but by extending and perfecting the basic elements of existing language. And the transition of a language from an old quality to a new does not take place by way of an explosion, but by the gradual accumulation of the elements of the new quality, and the gradual dying away of the elements of the old quality. Stalin discussed the development of nations and national languages before and after the victory of socialism on a world scale, and pointed out that before the victory of socialism on a world scale, the crossing of two languages could only be carried out by the victory of one of the languages and the defeat of the other; after the victory of socialism on a world scale, as a result of a prolonged economic, political and cultural cooperation of nations, there will first appear most enriched unified zonal languages, and subsequently the zonal languages will merge into a single international language, which will be a new language that has absorbed the best elements of the national and regional languages.

Fourthly, Stalin’s answer to the question of whether Pravda acted rightly in starting an open discussion on problems of linguistics. Stalin pointed out that along what lines the problems of linguistics will be settled, will become clear at the conclusion of the discussion, but it may be said already that the discussion has been very useful. It is generally recognized that no science can develop and flourish without a battle of opinions, without freedom of criticism. But this generally recognized rule was ignored and flouted in the most unceremonious fashion. Stalin also criticized Marr for putting the distorted Marxism into linguistics in an attempt to create an independent “new doctrine”. It also criticized some textualists and Talmudists for quoting Marxism mechanically, apart from historical conditions, and points out that 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 for their epochs, in view of the victory of socialism and the destiny of the socialist state. As a science, Marxism cannot stand still, it develops and is perfected, Marxism does not recognize fixed conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods, and Marxism is the enemy of all kinds of dogmatism.

This work is of great significance for the development of Marxist philosophy, linguistics and the theory of national issues.