MARXISM AND QUESTIONS OF LINGUISTICS

RELATIVELY

MARXISM IN LINGUISTICS

I was approached by a group of young comrades with a proposal to express my opinion in the press on questions of linguistics, especially as regards Marxism in linguistics. I am not a linguist and, of course, cannot fully satisfy my comrades. As for Marxism in linguistics, as in other social sciences, then I have a direct relationship with this. Therefore, I agreed to answer a number of questions put by the comrades.

Question. Is it true that language is a superstructure over a basis?

Answer. No, it's not true.

The basis is the economic structure of society at a given stage of its development. The superstructure is political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views societies and their respective political, legal and other institutions.

Every basis has its own corresponding superstructure. The basis of the feudal system has its own superstructure, its own political, legal and other views and institutions corresponding to them, the capitalist basis has its own superstructure, the socialist one has its own. If the basis changes and is liquidated, then after it its superstructure changes and is liquidated; if a new basis is born, then after it the corresponding superstructure is born.

The language is fundamentally different from the superstructure in this respect. Take, for example, Russian society and the Russian language. Over the past 30 years, the old, capitalist basis has been eliminated in Russia and a new, socialist basis has been built. Accordingly, the superstructure over the capitalist basis was liquidated and a new superstructure corresponding to the socialist basis was created. Consequently, the old political, legal and other institutions were replaced by new, socialist ones. But despite this, the Russian language remained basically the same as it was before the October Revolution.

What has changed during this period in the Russian language? The vocabulary of the Russian language has changed to a certain extent, in the sense that it has been replenished with a significant number of new words and expressions that have arisen in connection with the emergence of a new, socialist production, the emergence of a new state, a new, socialist culture, a new public, morality, and finally, in connection with the growth of technology and science; the meaning of a number of words and expressions that have received a new semantic meaning has changed; dropped out of the dictionary a number of obsolete words. As for the main vocabulary and grammatical structure of the Russian language, which form the basis of the language, after the liquidation of the capitalist basis, they not only were not liquidated and replaced by a new basic vocabulary and a new grammatical structure of the language, but, on the contrary, were preserved intact and were left without any - or serious changes - have been preserved precisely as the basis of the modern Russian language.

Further. The superstructure is generated by the basis, but this does not mean at all that it only reflects the basis, that it is passive, neutral, indifferent to the fate of its basis, to the fate of classes, to the nature of the system. On the contrary, having been born, it becomes the greatest active force actively helps its basis to take shape and become stronger, takes all measures to help the new system finish off and liquidate the old basis and the old classes.

It cannot be otherwise. The superstructure is created by the base for this purpose, so that it serves it, so that it actively helps it take shape and strengthen itself, so that it actively fights for the liquidation of the old, obsolete base with its old superstructure. One has only to give up this service role, one has only to move the superstructure from the position active protection its basis to the position of indifferent attitude towards it, to the position of the same attitude towards classes, so that it loses its quality and ceases to be a superstructure.

The language is fundamentally different from the superstructure in this respect. Language is generated not by this or that basis, old or new basis within a given society, but by the entire course of the history of society and the history of bases over the centuries. It was created not by any one class, but by the whole of society, by all classes of society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created to meet the needs of not just one class, but of the whole society, of all classes of society. That is why it was created as a common national language for society and common to all members of society. In view of this, the service role of language as a means of communication between people is not to serve one class to the detriment of other classes, but to equally serve the whole of society, all classes of society. This, in fact, explains that language can equally serve both the old, dying system, and the new, rising system, both the old basis and the new one, both the exploiters and the exploited.

It is no secret to anyone that the Russian language served Russian capitalism and Russian bourgeois culture just as well before the October Revolution as it now serves the socialist system and the socialist culture of Russian society.

The same must be said about Ukrainian, Belarusian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Georgian, Armenian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldovan, Tatar, Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Turkmen and other languages. Soviet nations who served the old, bourgeois system of these nations just as well as they serve the new, socialist system.

It cannot be otherwise. Language exists for this, it was created to serve society as a whole as an instrument of communication between people, so that it would be common for members of society and uniform for society, equally serving members of society, regardless of their class position. As soon as the language leaves this position of the people, it is only necessary for the language to take the position of preference and support for some social group to the detriment of other social groups of society, so that it loses its quality, so that it ceases to be a means of communication between people in society, so that it turns into the jargon of any social group has degraded and doomed itself to extinction.

In this respect, language, while fundamentally different from the superstructure, does not differ, however, from the instruments of production, say, from machines that can equally serve both the capitalist system and the socialist one.

Farther. The superstructure is the product of one epoch during which the given economic basis lives and operates. Therefore, the superstructure does not live long, it is liquidated and disappears with the liquidation and disappearance of the given basis.

Language, on the contrary, is the product of a number of epochs during which it takes shape, enriches, develops, and polishes. Therefore, the language lives incomparably longer than any basis and any superstructure. This, in fact, explains why the birth and elimination of not only one basis and its superstructure, but also several bases and corresponding superstructures does not lead in history to the elimination of a given language, to the elimination of its structure and the birth of a new language with a new vocabulary fund and a new grammatical system.

More than a hundred years have passed since Pushkin's death. During that time, the feudal system, the capitalist system, were liquidated in Russia and a third, socialist system arose. Consequently, two bases with their superstructures were liquidated and a new, socialist basis with its new superstructure arose. However, if we take, for example, the Russian language, then over this long period of time it has not undergone any breakdown, and the modern Russian language in its structure is not much different from Pushkin's language.

What has changed during this time in the Russian language? During this time, the vocabulary of the Russian language has been seriously replenished; dropped out of the vocabulary a large number of obsolete words, the semantic meaning of a significant number of words has changed, the grammatical structure When it comes to the structure of the Pushkin language with its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary, it has been preserved in all essentials as the basis of the modern Russian language.

And this is quite understandable. Indeed, why is it necessary that after each revolution the existing structure of the language, its grammatical structure and the main vocabulary fund are destroyed and replaced by new ones, as is usually the case with a superstructure? Who needs it so that "water", "land", "mountain", "forest", "fish", "man", "walk", "make", "produce", "trade", etc. were called not by water, earth, mountain, etc., but in some other way? Who needs to change words in a language and combine words in a sentence not according to the existing grammar, but according to a completely different one? What is the use of such a revolution in language for the revolution? History generally does not do anything significant without a special need for it. The question is, what is the need for such a linguistic revolution, if it is proved that the existing language with its structure is basically quite suitable for satisfying the needs of the new order? It is possible and necessary to destroy the old superstructure and replace it with a new one within a few years in order to give scope for the development of the productive forces of society, but how to destroy the existing language and build instead of it new language for several years without introducing anarchy into public life without creating a threat of the collapse of society? Who, except for donquixotes, can set themselves such a task?

Finally, there is one more fundamental difference between the add-in and the language. The superstructure is not connected directly with production, with human production activity. It is connected with production only indirectly, through the medium of the economy, through the medium of the basis. Therefore, the superstructure reflects changes in the level of development of productive forces not immediately and directly, but after changes in the basis, through the refraction of changes in production in changes in the basis. This means that the scope of the superstructure is narrow and limited.

Language, on the other hand, is directly connected with the production activity of a person, and not only with production activity, but also with any other human activity in all spheres of his work - from production to the basis, from the basis to the superstructure. Therefore, the language reflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the basis. Therefore, the scope of the language, covering all areas of human activity, is much wider and more versatile than the scope of the superstructure. Moreover, it is almost limitless.

This explains, first of all, that the language, its vocabulary proper, is in a state of almost continuous change. The continuous growth of the industry and Agriculture, trade and transport, technology and science requires the language to replenish its vocabulary with new words and expressions necessary for their work. And the language, directly reflecting these needs, replenishes its vocabulary with new words, improves its grammatical structure.

b) to confuse a language with a superstructure is to make a serious mistake.

Question. Is it true that language has always been and remains a class language, that there is no common and unified for society non-class, nationwide language?

Answer. No, it's not true.

It is not difficult to understand that in a society where there are no classes, there can be no question of a class language. The primitive communal tribal system did not know classes, therefore, there could not be a class language there either - the language was common there, uniform for the entire collective. The objection that a class should be understood as any human collective, including a primitive communal collective, is not an objection, but a play on words that does not deserve refutation.

As for the further development from tribal languages ​​to tribal languages, from tribal languages ​​to national languages ​​and from national languages ​​to national languages, everywhere at all stages of development, language as a means of communication between people in society was common and unified for society, equally serving members of society independently. from social position.

I am not referring here to the empires of the slave and medieval periods, say, the empire of Cyrus and Alexander the Great or the empire of Caesar and Charlemagne, which did not have their own economic base and represented temporary and unstable military-administrative associations. These empires not only did not have, but could not have a single language for the empire and understandable for all members of the empire. They represented a conglomerate of tribes and nationalities that lived their own lives and had their own languages. Consequently, I do not mean these and similar empires, but those tribes and nationalities that were part of the empire, had their own economic base and had their own long-established languages. History says that the languages ​​of these tribes and nationalities were not class-specific, but common to the tribes and nationalities and understandable to them.

Of course, along with this, there were dialects, local dialects, but they were dominated and subjugated by the single and common language of the tribe or nationality.

Later, with the advent of capitalism, with the elimination of feudal fragmentation and the formation of a national market, nationalities developed into nations, and the languages ​​of nationalities into national languages. History says that national languages ​​are not class languages, but common languages, common to the members of nations and common to the nation.

It was said above that language, as a means of communication between people in society, equally serves all classes of society and, in this respect, shows a kind of indifference to classes. But people, individual social groups, classes are far from being indifferent to language. They try to use the language in their own interests, to impose on it their own special lexicon, their own specific terms, their special expressions. Particularly distinguished in this respect are the upper strata of the propertied classes, who have cut themselves off from the people and hate them: the noble aristocracy, the upper strata of the bourgeoisie. "Class" dialects, jargons, salon "languages" are being created. In literature, these dialects and jargons are often incorrectly qualified as languages: "noble language", "bourgeois language", as opposed to "proletarian language", "peasant language". On this basis, strange as it may seem, some of our comrades have come to the conclusion that National language there is a fiction that only class languages ​​really exist.

I think that there is nothing more erroneous than such a conclusion. Can these dialects and jargons be considered languages? Certainly not. It is impossible, firstly, because these dialects and jargons do not have their own grammatical structure and basic vocabulary - they borrow them from the national language or another class and are completely unsuitable as a means of communication between people for society as a whole. What do they have? They have: a set of some specific words that reflect the specific tastes of the aristocracy or the upper layers of the bourgeoisie; a certain number of expressions and turns of speech, distinguished by sophistication, gallantry and free from "rude" expressions and turns of the national language; finally, some foreign words. All the same, the main thing, that is, the vast majority of words and the grammatical structure, is taken from the common, national language. Therefore, I represent dialects and jargons? offshoots from the national national language, devoid of any linguistic independence and doomed to vegetate. To think that dialects and jargons can develop into independent languages capable of supplanting and replacing the national language means losing a historical perspective and leaving the position of Marxism.

They refer to Marx, they quote one passage from his article "Saint Max", where it is said that the bourgeois has "its own language", that this language "is a product of the bourgeoisie", that it is imbued with the spirit of mercantilism and buying and selling. With this quotation, some comrades want to prove that Marx allegedly stood for the "class character" of language, that he denied the existence of a single national language. If these comrades had treated the matter objectively, they would have had to cite another quotation from the same article "Saint Max", where Marx, referring to the question of the ways of forming a single national language, speaks of "the concentration of dialects into a single national language, due to economic and political focus.

Consequently, Marx recognized the need for a single national language as higher form, to which dialects are subordinated as lower forms.

What, then, can represent the language of the bourgeoisie, which, in the words of Marx, "is a product of the bourgeoisie." Did Marx consider it the same language as the national language, with its own language structure? Could he consider it such a language? Of course not! Marx simply wanted to say that the bourgeois have polluted the single national language with their commercial lexicon, that the bourgeois, therefore, have their own commercial jargon.

It turns out that these comrades have distorted Marx's position. And they distorted it because they quoted Marx not as Marxists, but as pedantic, without delving into the essence of the matter.

They refer to Engels, they quote from the pamphlet The Condition of the Working Class in England Engels's words to the effect that "the English working class in the course of time has become a completely different people than English bourgeoisie"that "the workers speak a different dialect, have different ideas and ideas, different manners and moral principles, a different religion and politics than the bourgeoisie." that he stood, therefore, for the "class character" of language. True, Engels is speaking here not of language, but of dialect, fully realizing that the dialect, as an offshoot of the national language, cannot replace the national language. But these comrades, apparently, are not very sympathize with the difference between language and dialect...

It is obvious that the quotation is out of place, since Engels is not talking here about "class languages", but mainly about class ideas, ideas, mores, moral principles, religion, politics. It is absolutely correct that the ideas, ideas, customs, moral principles, religion, politics of the bourgeoisie and the proletarians are directly opposed. But where does the national language or the "class character" of the language have to do with it? Can the existence of class contradictions in society serve as an argument in favor of the "class nature" of the language, or against the need for a single national language? Marxism says that a common language is one of the most important features of a nation, while knowing full well that within a nation there are class contradictions. Do the comrades mentioned recognize this Marxist thesis?

They refer to Lafargue, pointing out that Lafargue, in his pamphlet Language and Revolution, recognizes the "class nature" of language, that he allegedly denies the need for a common, national language. This is not true. Lafargue does speak of the "noble" or "aristocratic language" and the "jargons" of various strata of society. But these comrades forget that Lafargue, without being interested in the question of the difference between language and jargon, and calling dialects either "artificial speech" or "jargon", definitely declares in his pamphlet that "artificial speech, which distinguishes the aristocracy ... from the language of the people, which was spoken by both the bourgeois and the artisans, the city and the countryside.

Consequently, Lafargue recognizes the existence and necessity of a national language, fully understanding the subordinate character and dependence of the "aristocratic language" and other dialects and jargons on the national language.

They refer to the fact that at one time in England the English feudal lords "in for centuries" spoke French, while the English people spoke English, that this circumstance is supposedly an argument in favor of the "class nature" of the language and against the need for a common language. But this is not an argument, but some kind of anecdote. Firstly "French was then spoken not by all the feudal lords, but by an insignificant elite of the English feudal lords at the royal court and in the counties. Secondly, they did not speak some kind of "class language", but the ordinary common French language. it is known that this pampering with the French language later disappeared without a trace, giving way to the common English language.Do these comrades think that the English feudal lords "for centuries" explained themselves with English people through translators, that they did not use the English language, that the common English language did not exist then, that the French language was then in England something more serious than the salon language, which was in circulation only in narrow circle top of the English aristocracy? How is it possible, on the basis of such anecdotal "arguments", to deny the existence and necessity of a national language?

Russian aristocrats at one time also dabbled in French at the royal court and in salons. They boasted that when they spoke Russian they stuttered in French, that they could only speak Russian with a French accent. Does this mean that in Russia at that time there was no national Russian language, that the national language was then a fiction, and "class languages" a reality?

Our comrades make at least two mistakes here.

The first mistake is that they mix the language with the add-on. They think that if the superstructure has a class character, then the language should not be universal, but class. But I already said above that the language and the superstructure represent two different concepts that a Marxist cannot allow them to be confused.

The second mistake is that these comrades perceive the opposition between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, their fierce class struggle, as the disintegration of society, as a rupture of all ties between hostile classes. They believe that since society has collapsed and there is no more united society, and there are only classes, then there is no need for a single language for society, no need for a national language. What remains if society has disintegrated and there is no longer a common, national language? There are classes and "class languages". It is clear that each "class language" will have its own "class" grammar - "proletarian" grammar, "bourgeois" grammar. True, such grammars do not exist in nature, but this does not bother these comrades: they believe that such grammars will appear.

At one time we had "Marxists" who argued that the railroads left in our country after the October Revolution were bourgeois, that it was not appropriate for us Marxists to use them, that they should be demolished and new, "proletarian" railroads built. They got the nickname "troglodytes" for this...

It is clear that such a primitive-anarchist view of society, classes, language has nothing in common with Marxism. But it certainly exists and continues to live in the minds of some of our confused comrades.

Of course, it is not true that due to the presence of a fierce class struggle, society allegedly split into classes that are no longer economically connected with each other in one society. Vice versa. As long as capitalism exists, the bourgeois and the proletarians will be linked by all the threads of the economy as part of a single capitalist society. The bourgeois cannot live and get rich without having wage-workers at their disposal; the proletarians cannot continue their existence without employing themselves with the capitalists. Cessation of all economic ties between them means the cessation of all production, and the cessation of all production leads to the destruction of society, to the destruction of the classes themselves. It is clear that no class wants to subject itself to destruction. Therefore, the class struggle, no matter how acute it may be, cannot lead to the disintegration of society. Only ignorance in questions of Marxism and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of language could prompt some of our comrades to tell a fairy tale about the disintegration of society, about "class" languages, about "class" grammars.

Further, they refer to Lenin and recall that Lenin recognized the existence of two cultures under capitalism - bourgeois and proletarian, that the slogan of national culture under capitalism is a nationalist slogan. All this is true, and Lenin is absolutely right here. But where does the "class" of the language? Referring to Lenin's words about two cultures under capitalism, these comrades, apparently, want to impress the reader that the presence of two cultures in society - bourgeois and proletarian - means that there must also be two languages, since language is connected with culture, - therefore, Lenin denies the need for a single national language, therefore, Lenin stands for "class" languages. The mistake of these comrades here is that they identify and confuse language with culture. Meanwhile, culture and language are two different things. Culture can be both bourgeois and socialist, but language as a means of communication is always the language of the people, and it can serve both bourgeois and socialist culture. Isn't it a fact that the Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek languages ​​now serve the socialist culture of these nations just as well as they served their bourgeois cultures before the October Revolution? This means that these comrades are deeply mistaken in asserting that the presence of two different cultures leads to the formation of two different languages ​​and to the denial of the need for a single language.

Speaking of two cultures, Lenin proceeded from the premise that the existence of two cultures cannot lead to the denial of a single language and the formation of two languages, that the language must be one. When the Bundists began to accuse Lenin of denying the need for a national language and interpreting culture as "nationalless", Lenin, as you know, sharply protested against this, declaring that he was fighting against bourgeois culture, and not against a national language, the need for which he considers it indisputable. It is strange that some of our comrades have followed in the footsteps of the Bundists.

With regard to a single language, the need for which Lenin allegedly denies, one should have heard the following words of Lenin:

“Language is the most important means of human communication; the unity of language and its unhindered development is one of the most important conditions for a truly free and wide, appropriate modern capitalism, trade turnover, free and wide grouping of the population according to all separate classes.

It turns out that the respected comrades distorted Lenin's views.

Finally, they refer to Stalin. They quote from Stalin that "the bourgeoisie and its nationalist parties were and remain in this period the main leading force such nations." That's all right. The bourgeoisie and its nationalist party really lead bourgeois culture, just as the proletariat and its internationalist party lead proletarian culture. But where does the "class character" of language come from? culture that the national language can serve both bourgeois and socialist culture? Are our comrades not familiar with the well-known Marxist formula that the current Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and other cultures are socialist in content and national in form, that is, in language? whether they are with this Marxist formula?

The mistake of our comrades here is that they do not see the difference between culture and language and do not understand that culture in its content changes with each new period in the development of society, while language remains basically the same language for several periods, serving the same both the new culture and the old.

a) language as a means of communication has always been and remains a single language for society and a common language for its members;

b) the presence of dialects and jargons does not deny, but confirms the existence of a common language, of which they are branches and to which they are subordinate;

c) the formula about the "class nature" of language is an erroneous, non-Marxist formula.

Question. What are characteristics language?

Answer. Language is one of social phenomena operating throughout the life of the company. It is born and develops with the birth and development of society. It dies with the death of society. There is no language outside of society. Therefore, the language and the laws of its development can be understood only if it is studied in close connection with the history of society, with the history of the people to whom the studied language belongs and which is the creator and bearer of this language.

Language is a means, a tool by which people communicate with each other, exchange thoughts and achieve mutual understanding. Being directly connected with thinking, language registers and consolidates in words and in the combination of words in sentences the results of the work of thinking, the successes of human cognitive work, and thus makes it possible to exchange thoughts in human society.

The exchange of thoughts is a constant and vital necessity, since without it it is impossible to organize joint actions of people in the struggle against the forces of nature, in the struggle for the production of the necessary wealth, it is impossible to achieve success in the production activity of society, therefore, the very existence of social production is impossible. Consequently, without a language that is understandable to society and common to its members, society ceases production, disintegrates and ceases to exist as a society. In this sense, language, being an instrument of communication, is at the same time an instrument of the struggle and development of society.

As you know, all the words in a language make up the so-called vocabulary of the language. The main thing in the vocabulary of the language is the main vocabulary fund, which includes all the root words as its core. It is much less extensive than the vocabulary of a language, but it lives for a very long time, for centuries, and gives the language a basis for the formation of new words. The vocabulary reflects the picture of the state of the language: the richer and more versatile the vocabulary, the richer and more developed the language.

However, the vocabulary, taken by itself, does not yet constitute a language - it is most likely the building material for the language. Just as building materials in the construction business do not constitute a building, although it is impossible to build a building without them, so the vocabulary of a language does not constitute the language itself, although no language is conceivable without it. But the vocabulary of the language gets greatest value when it comes to the disposal of the grammar of the language, which determines the rules for changing the word, the rules for combining words into sentences and, thus, gives the language a harmonious, meaningful character. Grammar (morphology, syntax) is a collection of rules about changing words and combining words in a sentence. Therefore, it is thanks to grammar that language is able to clothe human thoughts into a material linguistic shell.

A distinctive feature of grammar is that it gives rules for changing words, meaning not specific words, but words in general without any specificity; it gives rules for making sentences, meaning not any specific proposals, say, a specific subject, a specific predicate, etc., but in general all kinds of sentences, regardless of the specific form of a particular sentence. Consequently, abstracting from the particular and the concrete both in words and in sentences, grammar takes the general that underlies the changes in words and the combination of words in sentences, and builds grammatical rules, grammatical laws from it. Grammar is the result of a long abstracting work of human thinking, an indicator of the enormous success of thinking.

In this respect, grammar resembles geometry, which gives its own laws, abstracting from specific items, considering objects as bodies devoid of concreteness, and defining relations between them not as concrete relations of such and such specific objects, but as relations of bodies in general, devoid of any concreteness.

Unlike the superstructure, which is connected with production not directly, but through the medium of the economy, language is directly connected with the production activity of a person, just as with any other activity in all spheres of his work without exception. Therefore, the vocabulary of the language, as the most sensitive to changes, is in a state of almost continuous change, while the language, unlike the superstructure, does not have to wait for the liquidation of the basis, it makes changes to its vocabulary before the liquidation of the basis and regardless of the state of the basis.

However, the vocabulary of the language does not change as a superstructure, not by canceling the old and building a new one, but by replenishing existing dictionary new words that have arisen in connection with changes social order, with the development of production, with the development of culture, science, etc. At the same time, despite the fact that a certain number of obsolete words usually fall out of the vocabulary of a language, a much larger number of new words are added to it. As for the main vocabulary, it is preserved throughout the main and is used as the basis of the vocabulary of the language.

This is understandable. There is no need to destroy the basic vocabulary if it can be successfully used over a number of historical periods, not to mention the fact that the destruction of the basic vocabulary accumulated over the centuries, if it is impossible to create a new basic vocabulary for short term would lead to a paralysis of the language, to a complete breakdown in the communication of people among themselves.

The grammatical structure of a language changes even more slowly than its main vocabulary. Developed over the course of epochs and included in the flesh and blood of the language, the grammatical structure changes even more slowly than the main vocabulary. Of course, it undergoes changes over time, it improves, improves and refines its rules, is enriched with new rules, but the foundations of the grammatical structure remain for a very long time, since, as history shows, they can successfully serve society for a number of years. epochs.

Thus, the grammatical structure of the language and its main vocabulary fund form the basis of the language, the essence of its specificity.

History notes the great stability and colossal resistance of language to forced assimilation. Some historians, instead of explaining this phenomenon, limit themselves to surprise. But there is no reason for surprise here. The stability of the language is explained by the stability of its grammatical structure and the main vocabulary. For hundreds of years, Turkish assimilationists tried to cripple, destroy and destroy languages Balkan peoples. During this period, the vocabulary of the Balkan languages ​​underwent serious changes, many Turkish words and expressions were adopted, there were "convergences" and " discrepancies", however, the Balkan languages ​​survived and survived. Why? Because the grammatical structure and the main vocabulary of these languages ​​​​are mostly preserved.

From all this it follows that language, its structure, cannot be regarded as the product of any one epoch. The structure of the language, its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary is the product of a number of eras.

It must be assumed that the elements of the modern language were laid down in ancient times before the era of slavery. It was a simple language, with a very meager vocabulary, but with its own grammatical structure, though primitive, but still a grammatical structure.

Further development of production, the emergence of classes, the emergence of writing, the emergence of a state that needed more or less ordered correspondence for governance, the development of trade, which needed even more ordered correspondence, the emergence printing press, the development of literature - all this has made great changes in the development of the language. During this time, tribes and nationalities split up and diverged, mixed and crossed, and later national languages ​​and states appeared, revolutionary upheavals took place, the old social systems new. All this brought even more changes to the language and its development.

However, it would be deeply erroneous to think that the development of the language took place in the same way as the development of the superstructure: by destroying the existing and building a new one. In fact, the development of the language took place not by destroying the existing language and building a new one, but by deploying and improving the basic elements of the existing language. At the same time, the transition from one quality of language to another took place not by an explosion, not by a one-time destruction of the old and the construction of a new one, but by a gradual and long-term accumulation of elements of a new quality, new structure language, through the gradual withering away of elements of the old quality.

It is said that the theory of the stage development of language is a Marxist theory, since it recognizes the necessity of sudden explosions as a condition for the transition of a language from an old quality to a new one. This, of course, is not true, for it is difficult to find anything Marxist in this theory. And if the stadial theory really recognizes sudden explosions in the history of language development, then so much the worse for it. Marxism does not recognize sudden explosions in the development of language, sudden death an existing language and the sudden construction of a new language. Lafargue was wrong when he spoke of the "sudden linguistic revolution that took place between 1789 and 1794" in France (see Lafargue's pamphlet Language and Revolution). There was no linguistic revolution, and even a sudden one, at that time in France. Of course, during this period, the vocabulary of the French language was replenished with new words and expressions, a certain number of obsolete words fell out, the semantic meaning of some words changed - and nothing more. But such changes in no way decide the fate of the language. The main thing in a language is its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary. But the grammatical structure and the main vocabulary of the French language not only did not disappear during the period of the French Revolution, but remained without significant changes, and not only survived, but continue to live to this day in modern French. I'm not talking about the fact that five or six years is ridiculously short for the elimination of the existing language and the construction of a new national language ("sudden linguistic revolution"!) - this takes centuries.

Marxism believes that the transition of a language from an old quality to a new one takes place not by an explosion, not by destroying the existing language and creating a new one, but by gradually accumulating elements of a new quality, consequently, by gradually dying out of elements of the old quality.

In general, it must be said to the attention of comrades who are carried away by explosions that the law of transition from the old quality to the new by means of an explosion is inapplicable not only to the history of the development of language, but also not always applicable to other social phenomena of a basic or superstructural order. It is indispensable for a society divided into hostile classes. But it is by no means obligatory for a society without hostile classes. In the course of 8-10 years, we carried out in the agriculture of our country the transition from the bourgeois individual-peasant system to the socialist, collective farm system. It was a revolution that abolished the old bourgeois economic system in the countryside and created a new, socialist system. However, this coup was not accomplished by an explosion, that is, not by overthrowing the existing government and creating new government, but by a gradual transition from the old, bourgeois system in the village to the new. And it was possible to do this because it was a revolution from above, because the coup was carried out on the initiative of the existing government with the support of the main masses of the peasantry.

It is said that the numerous facts of the crossing of languages ​​that have taken place in history give reason to assume that during crossing a new language is formed by an explosion, by a sudden transition from the old quality to the new quality. This is completely false.

The crossing of tongues cannot be regarded as a single act of a decisive blow, yielding its results within a few

years. Crossing languages ​​is a long process that continues for hundreds of years. Therefore, there can be no talk of any explosions here.

Further. It would be completely wrong to think that as a result of crossing, say, two languages, a new, third language is obtained, not similar to any of the crossed languages ​​and qualitatively different from each of them. In fact, when crossing, one of the languages ​​usually comes out victorious, retains its grammatical structure, retains its basic vocabulary and continues to develop according to the internal laws of its development, while the other language gradually loses its quality and gradually dies off.

Consequently, crossing does not give some new, third language, but preserves one of the languages, preserves its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary and gives it the opportunity to develop according to the internal laws of its development.

True, in this case there is some enrichment of the vocabulary of the victorious language at the expense of the defeated language, but this does not weaken, but, on the contrary, strengthens it.

So it was, for example, with the Russian language, with which, in the course of historical development, the languages ​​of a number of other peoples were crossed and which always emerged victorious.

Of course, the vocabulary of the Russian language was replenished at the same time at the expense of the vocabulary of other languages, but this not only did not weaken, but, on the contrary, enriched and strengthened the Russian language.

As for the national identity of the Russian language, it did not experience the slightest damage, because, having retained its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary, the Russian language continued to move forward and improve according to the internal laws of its development.

There can be no doubt that the theory of crossbreeding cannot give anything serious to Soviet linguistics. If it is true that the main task of linguistics is the study of the internal laws of language development, then it must be admitted that the theory of crossbreeding not only does not solve this problem, but does not even pose it, it simply does not notice or does not understand it.

Question. Did Pravda do the right thing by opening a free discussion on questions of linguistics?

Answer. Did the right thing.

In what direction the questions of linguistics will be resolved, it will become clear at the end of the discussion. But even now we can say that the discussion was of great benefit.

The discussion revealed, first of all, that in the organs of linguistics, both in the center and in the republics, a regime dominated that was not characteristic of science and people of science. The slightest criticism of the state of affairs in Soviet linguistics, even the most timid attempts to criticize the so-called "new doctrine" in linguistics, were persecuted and suppressed by the leading circles of linguistics. For a critical attitude to the legacy of N. Ya. Marr, for the slightest disapproval of the teachings of N. Ya. Marr, valuable workers and researchers in the field of linguistics were dismissed or demoted. Figures of linguistics were promoted to positions of responsibility not on the basis of business, but on the basis of unconditional recognition of the teachings of N. Ya. Marr.

It is generally recognized that no science can develop and succeed without a struggle of opinions, without freedom of criticism. But this universally recognized rule was ignored and trampled upon in the most unceremonious manner. A closed group of infallible leaders was created, which, having secured itself from any possible criticism, began to be self-willed and outrageous.

One example: the so-called “Baku course” (lectures by N. Ya. Marr) was republished and included in the number of manuals recommended for students without any reservations. This means that the students were deceived by giving them the rejected "Kurs" for a full-fledged allowance. If I were not convinced of the honesty of Comrade Meshchaninov and other figures in linguistics, I would say that such behavior is tantamount to sabotage.

How could this happen? And this happened because the Arakcheev regime, created in linguistics, cultivates irresponsibility and encourages such atrocities.

The discussion turned out to be very useful, first of all, because it exposed this Arakcheev regime to the light of day and smashed it to smithereens.

But the benefit of the discussion does not end there. The discussion not only smashed the old regime in linguistics, but it also revealed that incredible confusion of views on the most important issues linguistics, which reigns among the leading circles of this branch of science. Until the beginning of the discussion, they were silent and hushed up the unfavorable situation in linguistics. But after the beginning of the discussion, it became impossible to remain silent - they were forced to speak on the pages of the press. And what? It turned out that in the teachings of N. Ya. Marr there is whole line gaps, errors, unspecified problems, undeveloped provisions. The question is, why did the "disciples" of N. Ya. Marr start talking about this only now, after the opening of the discussion? Why didn't they take care of this sooner? Why didn't they at one time say this openly and honestly, as befits scientists?

Having admitted "some" mistakes of N. Ya. Marr, "disciples" of N. Ya. Marr, it turns out, think that further development of linguistics is possible only on the basis of the "refined" theory of N. Ya. Marr, which they consider Marxist. No, save us from the "Marxism" of N. Ya. Marr. N. Ya. Marr really wanted to be and tried to be a Marxist, but he failed to become a Marxist. He was merely a simplifier and vulgarizer of Marxism, like the "proletcultists" or "Rappovists".

N. Ya. Marr introduced into linguistics an incorrect, non-Marxist formula about language as a superstructure and confused himself, confused linguistics. It is impossible to develop Soviet linguistics on the basis of an incorrect formula.

N. Ya. Marr introduced into linguistics another, also incorrect and non-Marxist, formula about the "class character" of language and confused himself, confused linguistics. It is impossible to develop Soviet linguistics on the basis of an incorrect formula, which contradicts the entire course of the history of peoples and languages.

N. Ya. Marr introduced into linguistics an immodest, arrogant, arrogant tone that is not characteristic of Marxism, leading to a naked and frivolous denial of everything that was in linguistics before N. Ya. Marr.

N. Ya. Marr blatantly defames the comparative historical method as "idealistic". Meanwhile, it must be said that the comparative historical method, despite its serious shortcomings, is still better than the really idealistic four-element analysis of N. Ya. lying on the stove and guessing on the coffee grounds around the notorious four elements.

N. Ya. Marr arrogantly dismisses any attempt to study groups (families) of languages ​​as a manifestation of the "proto-language" theory. Meanwhile, it cannot be denied that the linguistic kinship, for example, of such nations as the Slavic, is beyond doubt, that the study of the linguistic kinship of these nations could be of great benefit to linguistics in the study of the laws of language development. It is clear that the theory of "proto-language" has nothing to do with this matter.

Listen to N. Ya. Marr and especially his martyrs" - one might think that before N. Ya. Marr there was no linguistics, that linguistics began with the advent of the **new teaching" of N. Ya. Marr. Marx and Engels were much more modest: they believed that their dialectical materialism was a product of the development of sciences, including philosophy, in previous periods.

Thus, the discussion helped the cause also in the sense that it revealed ideological gaps in Soviet linguistics.

I think that the sooner our linguistics is freed from the mistakes of N. Ya. Marr, the sooner it can be brought out of the crisis that it is now experiencing.

The liquidation of the Arakcheev regime in linguistics, the rejection of the mistakes of N. Ya. Marr, the introduction of Marxism into linguistics - this, in my opinion, is the way in which Soviet linguistics could be improved.

I. STALIN

You cannot build a just society on the basis of Marxism, which was shown by the Khrushchev-Brezhnev era and the collapse of the USSR. In order to understand this theory, it is necessary to start with the most important link - with the political economy of Marxism. The science of measurements - metrology - will help us with this. So Marxism is a metrologically untenable doctrine. He operates with abstractions that cannot be measured in practice and connected with life, with the solution of practically significant problems. If you enter production, you will not be able to measure the volumes of the “necessary” and “surplus” product; no clock will show when the "necessary" is over work time and the "surplus" began. It turns out that real accounting and control over production cannot be carried out on the basis of Marxist political economy. The Marxist doctrine completely exposed its inconsistency by the beginning of the 1950s, since then the crisis of the pseudo-communist development of the USSR, which has been aggravated over time, has arisen. A harsh exposure of Marxism, an actual sentence was given to him in 1952 in the work of I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. It was in connection with this that Stalin's works were actually, although not legally, banned. Listen to the text of I.V. Stalin: “I think that it is necessary to discard the concepts taken from Marx's Capital. I mean, among other things, such concepts as "necessary" and "surplus" product, "necessary" and "surplus" time ... I think that our economists should put an end to this discrepancy between the old concepts and the new state of affairs. We could tolerate this discrepancy up to a certain time, but now the time has come when we must finally eliminate this discrepancy. This is a statement of extreme methodological significance, because terminology is the basis of the fundamentals in management. Marxism also provokes class struggle by deliberately pitting business owners against employees. And for what? And in order to hide the true mechanisms of enslavement in equally both one and the other. Their ruin is realized by bank usury through the credit and financial system with a non-zero loan interest. In reality, the business owner and the employee are sitting in the same boat, although they have fundamentally different functions in the scheme for making a profit, in the scheme for obtaining the final result. Simply put, Karl Marx "forgot" to mention the role of world usurers in the economy and could not understand that it was more correct to classify people in society into social parasites and social creators. The parasite can be not only the capitalist who oppresses the working class, but the worker himself.

We have the teachings of Marx-Lenin. No additional exercises are required.
I. Stalin.

The life and work of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is an outstanding example of extraordinary fidelity and unswerving steadfastness in upholding and implementing the Marxist-Leninist doctrine.

Already at the age of fifteen, Iosif Dzhugashvili was imbued with the greatness of Marxist ideas. He was strongly impressed by the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by K. Marx and F. Engels, acquaintance with the ideas of "Capital" by K. Marx.

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the young revolutionary Iosif Dzhugashvili learned about the works of K. Tulin (V.I. Lenin). After the release of the Bolshevik newspaper Iskra, he firmly stood next to V.I. Lenin in the revolutionary struggle.

As a major Marxist theorist I.V. Stalin made himself known with Marxism and the National Question, written during his emigration to Vienna in 1913. This work was highly appreciated by V.I. Lenin, and it was taken as the program of the Bolshevik Party on the national question.

At the fateful VI Congress of the RSDLP (b), held on July 26 - August 3, 1917, I.V. Stalin prophetically said:

— We must cast aside the obsolete idea that only Europe can show us the way. There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand on the basis of the latter.

I.V. Stalin confidently declared that "it is Russia that will be the country paving the way to socialism." IN AND. Lenin and I.V. Stalin armed the Bolshevik Party with a powerful weapon of victory in October 1917.

In the beginning of a new era in the national and world history of mankind, I.V. Stalin was able to understand the deep essence of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine - a doctrine that is not only and not so much a system of certain concepts, principles and provisions, but also an unsurpassed tool for developing knowledge, a method of analyzing and generalizing a new historical, socio-political and spiritual experience. He realized the creative nature of this doctrine and therefore approached it himself as a revolutionary and builder of a new world, socialism in one country - the Soviet Union, relying on own forces. In other words, he enriched Leninism with new ideas, new principles and facets corresponding to new historical conditions, new experience in socialist construction and its defense against various kinds of falsifiers and opponents.

In the 30s L.M. Kaganovich, then secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, made a proposal to introduce the concept of “Stalinism” to denote that new one that enriched I.V. Stalin Leninist doctrine. This caused a sharp protest of Joseph Vissarionovich. He said with conviction that we have the teachings of Leninism and there is no need to invent any new “isms”. Deep theoretical substantiation of Leninism I.V. Stalin gave mainly in such works as On the Foundations of Leninism and On Questions of Leninism.

Continuing the ideas and work of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the new historical conditions, Stalin formulated the theory of the construction of the Soviet socialist state, the development of Soviet socialist democracy, and the spiritual and cultural development of the country. An important role in the ideological hardening of the Soviet people was played by the work of I.V. Stalin “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism”, written for the book “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Short course”. I.V. Stalin showed that to master the Marxist-Leninist theory means to assimilate the essence of this theory and learn how to use it in solving practical problems. revolutionary movement under various conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.

The decisive period in the history of Soviet society was the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan. During these years, I.V. Stalin further developed the Marxist-Leninist theory of war and the army, introduced a lot of new things into the Soviet military science and enriched the Soviet military art.

In 1947, by decision Central Committee The VKP(b) Institute of Marx-Engels-Lenin under the Central Committee of the party prepared the second edition “ Brief biography I.V. Stalin." During a conversation with the team of authors I.V. Stalin said:

- A lot of mistakes. The tone is bad, Socialist-Revolutionary. I have all sorts of teachings, up to some kind of teaching about the constant factors of war. It turns out that I have a doctrine about communism, industrialization, collectivization, and so on. There is a lot of praise in this biography, exaltation of the role of the individual. What should the reader do after reading this biography? Get on your knees and pray for me.

Don't educate Marxism...

You draw the whole thing in such a way that you get on your knees and pray ... who are you writing about ... Damn educators ...

We don't need idolaters...

Here you write that I have a doctrine about the constant factors of war, while in any history of wars this is written. Maybe I have said it stronger, but that's all... I, it turns out, have a doctrine of communism. As if Lenin spoke only about socialism and said nothing about communism. In fact, about communism, I said the same thing that Lenin has. Further, as if I had a doctrine about the industrialization of the country, about the collectivization of agriculture, and so on. etc. In fact, it was Lenin who had the merit of raising the question of the industrialization of our country, as well as with regard to the question of the collectivization of agriculture, and so on.

We have the teachings of Marx-Lenin. No additional exercises are required.

In the post-war stage of development of the Soviet Union, I.V. Stalin developed ways to solve the main economic problem of the USSR and further strengthen the power of the Soviet state. At the October (1952) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU I.V. Stalin set the task of educating ideologically steadfast political and statesmen. He noted that political leaders of the Leninist type, educated by our Party, will have to fight to break and overcome the resistance of all kinds of hostile opportunist elements striving to slow down and frustrate the building of socialism in order to achieve complete success in realizing our great goals - socialism, communism.

At the plenum I.V. Stalin sharply criticized V.M. Molotov and A.I. Mikoyan. In response, V.M. Molotov, admitting his mistakes, began to assure that he had always been and remains a faithful student of I.V. Stalin. Interrupting him, Stalin sharply objected:

- Nonsense! I don't have any students. We are all students of the great Lenin.

At the October (1952) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, I.V. Stalin introduced 22 new party and government officials. Among them were D.I. Chesnokov, P.F. Yudin and A.M. Rumyantsev. In their memoirs, they emphasized the reverent attitude of I.V. Stalin to the Marxist-Leninist theory, his urgent demand to constantly develop the Marxist-Leninist doctrine in accordance with the new tasks of building socialism, communism, the new conditions of the post-war world.

So, D.I. Chesnokov spoke about I.V. Stalin to boundless quoting of already known Marxist truths, confusion in questions of theory. Stalin said more than once that without theory we die.

A.M. Rumyantsev recalled that when a textbook on political economy was being created in the 1950s, I.V. Stalin drew the attention of the team of authors to the need to strictly follow the requirements of Marxist economic science, and in order not to miss its main conclusions, he noted how certain problems were posed by K. Marx in Capital, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin in his economic writings. Their works were always on Stalin's desk, and he found without error those propositions of the classics of Marxism that confirmed the correctness of the new thoughts he formulated.

I.V. Stalin was the initiator of the main scientific discussions: on questions of history, philosophy and Marxism in 1947, on questions of linguistics in 1950 and on economic problems in 1952. These creative discussions, the struggle of opinions played big role in the development of Soviet social sciences, the creation of full-fledged textbooks for secondary and higher schools.

The whole life and work of I.V. Stalin is a model creative solution new theoretical questions in the course of implementing topical and complex socio-economic, political, moral and international tasks, with full consideration of possible miscalculations and indispensable foresight of results for the entire process of socialist construction.

A statist reading of Marx

Sometimes one can come across the statement that Stalin tolerated Marxism because "it was necessary." Left-wing critics speak of this with indignation, "national-Stalinists" with approval, and liberals with disdain, in order to once again show all the cynicism of the "tyrant". There is no point in simplifying this matter. Stalin, of course, sincerely considered himself a follower of Marx, a real Marxist. Another thing is that he understood Marxism in a peculiar way - like, by the way, any creative Marxist of the 20th century. In principle, the Stalinist ideological model can be called nation-state Marxism.

And here it is necessary to say a few words about what Marxism became for Russia in 1917, when the Bolshevik party, the revolutionary Marxists, came to power. It seems that in those historical conditions, only Marxism could become a state-forming ideology, and it was precisely in its most radical, Bolshevik version. It must be borne in mind that Russian socio-political thought was then (as, indeed, the whole country) in a state of chaos caused by the collapse of the old foundations. She needed some kind of solid support, some kind of reliable rod. And just Marxism, with its set of clearly formulated and rigidly approved provisions, almost ideally suited the role of such a support-rod. Without a doubt, he was characterized by both dogmatism and schematism, which in the 1950s and 1970s held back at least some development of “theory”. However, during the revolution and civil war, the disintegrating national consciousness was in great need and longed for both dogma and scheme. "Classes", "productive forces and relations of production", "basis", "formations", "superstructure" - all this, as it were, laid out social life on the shelves.

It may be objected that Russian thought itself would have reached its own “Marxism”, without any “imported” ideologies. Yes, most likely, this would have happened - if there were certain conditions necessary for relatively calm creativity. But, in fact of the matter, there were no such conditions. The country was taken “by surprise” by the world war and revolution. And next to it was the West with its package of ideologies, from which they urgently pulled out one that was most suitable for national needs.

And this process was almost universal. It is indicative that Russian populism (the super-popular Socialist-Revolutionaries with their millions of party members) also seized on Marxism - here a desire was manifested to stand on some kind of solid ground. But they made a mistake, following precisely the Mensheviks, recognizing the correctness of their views, according to which capitalism in Russia should develop for a very long time. long time until it dominates absolutely everywhere. Menshevik Marxism postponed socialism for "later", presenting it as a matter of a distant, post-capitalist future, but this could not captivate the masses. At the same time, Bolshevik Marxism offered to make a socialist revolution immediately, "here and now." Therefore, the masses followed him.

The iron Marxist foundation of Bolshevism attracted a variety of elements to it. Including purely statist ones, who saw in it the guarantee of saving the disintegrating Russia and creating a new, powerful industrial power. (It is characteristic that as socialism was being built, it was precisely the statist interpretation of Marxism that grew stronger, which was very far from its original essence.) And, indeed, economic determinism Marxism programmed the country for rapid, forced industrialization, which was so necessary for it - primarily for military purposes. Here it should be noted that "in general", theoretically, in the cabinet, so to speak, this same determinism "is not good." But in those specific historical conditions, it turned out to be truly saving.

And the very economic determinism of the Bolshevik-Marxists was very conditional. They paid great attention to state-political institutions, believing that they can do a lot of things that the economy cannot yet do. (On the contrary, the Mensheviks were waiting for the capitalist economy to "fire up" to its full potential and reach Western heights.) One might even say that in in a certain sense Lenin and the Bolsheviks put politics ahead of economics. And this, by the way, is inherent in the right, or rather, even the "extreme" right. It turns out that the Bolsheviks filled Marxism with "right" meanings.

In the course of building a powerful industrial socialist state, Stalin only intensified this trend. He considered socialism, which overcomes the spontaneity of the market and ensures planned development, as a powerful tool designed to strengthen the country and ensure its independence. It was precisely this understanding that he demonstrated at a meeting with the staff of the new political economy textbook, which took place on January 29, 1941. Then Stalin said: “The first task is to ensure the independence National economy countries from the capitalist encirclement, so that the economy does not turn into an appendage of the capitalist countries. If we did not have a planning center that would ensure the independence of the national economy, industry would develop in a completely different way, everything would begin with light industry and not from heavy industry. We have turned the laws of the capitalist economy upside down, turned them upside down, or rather, upside down... At first, we have to disregard the principle of profitability of enterprises. The business of profitability is subordinated in our country to the construction, first of all, of heavy industry.

In fact, the political here is unambiguously placed above the economic. Researcher P. Krasnov analyzed this statement and paid special attention to such a “low” assessment of the profitability factor. In his opinion, in big system there is different levels optimization, and the fate of individual elements, but not the entire system, depends on their successful functioning. Under capitalism, optimization occurs mainly at the level of an individual enterprise (corporation). And if, say, one enterprise managed to ruin another, then this means optimizing just one of the levels. But at the same time, the whole system as a whole is not optimized. “The USSR, on the other hand, offered its own, unprecedented model - optimization at the level of the whole society, including upbringing, education, medical service, security and much more, writes Krasnov. - This system was originally planned as integral, that is, indivisible into parts, as indivisible into viable parts human body. Let's pay attention to the words that profitability was not given of great importance only “at first”, therefore, the mechanism for the profitability of enterprises was originally planned, but had to be launched in due time, when more high level social optimization has already been pre-configured" ("Stalin's Economic Miracle").

It was precisely such an integral system, coupled with political (national-state) "determinism", that allowed the USSR to maintain its independence even in the conditions of terrible post-war devastation. And not only preserve, but also restore the economy in the shortest possible time, which shocked the whole world.

Marxism and Marxists are often reproached for the utopian expectation that the state will wither away and some kind of absolutely self-governing society will emerge. Indeed, some of the "classics" were characterized by such expectations (they also expected the withering away of nations, property, families). In fact, it was an exaggerated reaction to all the horrors that the capitalist exploitation of that time gave rise to. The European socialists of the 19th century set out to overcome the monstrous inequality and the same monstrous injustice by eliminating all essential differences - in some absolutely homogeneous community, in the world universe.

F. Engels paid special attention to the need for the withering away of the state in his famous “Anti-Dühring” (1878): “The state was the official representative of the whole society, it united it in one visible organization, but it played this role only insofar as it was a state the class that was itself the representative of the entire contemporary society: in ancient times, the state of citizen-slaveowners; in the Middle Ages - the feudal nobility; in our time - the bourgeoisie. Having finally become the real representative of the whole society, it will become superfluous. When there are no social classes to be kept in subjection, when there is no domination of one class over another and the struggle for existence rooted in the modern anarchy of production, when the clashes and violence resulting from this are eliminated, then there will be no one to suppress and restrain, then there will be no the need for state power, which now performs this function.

Lenin, of course, agreed with the classics, but he was rather cautious on this issue, arguing in his State and Revolution (1918) that “there can be no question of determining the moment of the future ‘withering away’, especially since it represents itself is obviously a lengthy process. Even more cautious was Stalin, who in 1939 at the 18th Congress of the CPSU (b) strongly “walked” about “an unacceptably careless attitude to questions of the theory of the state” and openly criticized Engels himself. In the opinion of the leader of the USSR, the "classic" of scientific socialism did not sufficiently take into account the factor of the international situation. At the same time, the leader raised the question of the fate of the state under communism: “We are moving further, forward, towards communism. Will the state be preserved in our country also in the period of communism? Yes, it will continue if the capitalist encirclement is not liquidated, if the danger of a military attack from outside is not eliminated, and it is clear that the forms of our state will again be changed in accordance with the change in the internal and external situation.

If you think about it, you get the following. Stalin oriented the party to the fact that the state will always exist. Of course, he made a reservation - if the capitalist encirclement is not liquidated. But it was already a tribute to "fundamentalism". It can also be argued that Stalin allowed the preservation of nations under communism, while the "classics" of Marxism wrote about their withering away (together with the state). Although, for example, Lenin in his work “Children's disease of leftism in communism” (1920) argued that national and state differences “will continue for a very, very long time even after the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat on a worldwide scale.”

Stalin, as in relation to the state, was even more cautious in this matter. In The National Question and Leninism (1929), he polemicizes with those party members who argue that nations will wither away as socialism is built. Stalin categorically denies this. According to him, nations, on the contrary, will flourish. “Only at the second stage of the period of the world dictatorship of the proletariat, as a single world socialist economy takes shape instead of a world capitalist economy, only at this stage will something like a common language begin to take shape, for only at this stage will nations feel the need to have, along with their own national languages ​​one common international language, - for the convenience of relations and the convenience of economic, cultural and political cooperation, the Secretary General emphasizes. - So, at this stage, national languages ​​and a common international language will exist in parallel. It is possible that initially not one world economic center common to all nations with one common language will be created, but several zonal economic centers for individual groups nations with a separate common language for each group of nations, and only subsequently will these centers unite into one common world center of the socialist economy with one common language for all nations.

And only after that, Stalin rather sparingly describes the process of final internationalization: “At the next stage of the period of the world dictatorship of the proletariat, when the world socialist economic system is sufficiently strengthened and socialism enters the life of peoples, when nations are convinced in practice of the advantages of a common language over national languages, national differences and languages ​​will begin to die out, giving way to a common world language.”

As can be seen, Stalin reluctantly speaks of the withering away of nations, paying tribute to the "classics". Apparently, he fully admitted the possibility of their preservation under communism - just as he did (in a somewhat camouflaged form) in relation to the state. This becomes evident from his attitude towards language. In his later work “Marxism and questions of linguistics” (1950), Stalin emphasized that language is not at all a superstructure that is subordinate to the basis: “Language is not generated by this or that basis, old or new basis within a given society, but throughout the course of the history of society and the history of bases over the centuries. It was created not by any one class, but by the whole of society, by all classes of society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created to meet the needs of not just one class, but of the whole society, of all classes of society. That is why it was created as a common national language for society and common for all members of society.”

Stalin, in general, singled out the language as something special, not closed within the framework of any formations and epochs: “Language, its structure cannot be considered as a product of any one epoch. The structure of the language, its grammatical structure and basic vocabulary are the products of a number of epochs. Thus, the language is preserved with the change of formations. But he, from the point of view of Stalin, is the most important characteristic feature of the nation. In his work “Marxism and the National Question” (1913), he even puts it in first place: “A nation is a historically established, stable community of people that has arisen on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental make-up, manifested in a common culture.” One gets the strong impression that Stalin is preparing his reader for the idea that the nation will never wither away, even under communism. (By the way, Kurt Huebner, a well-known national scholar, gives just such an interpretation of his views, set forth in the Questions of Linguistics.)

In conclusion, we must consider the question of the class character of the state, on which Marx and his followers insisted so much. They seem to be both right and wrong in this. First of all, we must admit (no matter how one relates to Marxism itself) that classes are a reality, and not some kind of “communist fiction”. Moreover, classes exist precisely in the Marxist-Leninist understanding. Indeed, large groups of people are active on the historical stage, differing in their place in the historically determined system of social production, in their relation (for the most part defined and enshrined in laws) to the means of production, in their role in public organization labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have” (V.I. Lenin, “The Great Initiative”). Another thing is that Marxism absolutizes this very class division, but its very existence is undeniable. (Again, the shock of the early socialists, to whom the whole abyss of the then class inequality was revealed, showed itself here.)

Any state is compelled in one way or another to rise above the classes in order to regulate public relations to prevent the struggle for the possession of the means of production from degenerating into mutual destruction and general destruction. In principle, this was recognized by the classics themselves. Thus, the “anti-statist” Engels, already quoted above, writes about the times when classes were just emerging: “In every primitive community there exist from the very beginning certain common interests, the protection of which has to be entrusted to individuals, albeit under the supervision of the whole society: such are the resolution of disputes; repressions against persons exceeding their rights; supervision of irrigation, especially in hot countries ... political domination turned out to be lasting only if it performed this public official function. No matter how many despotisms there were in Persia and India, successively flourishing and then dying, each of them knew very well that she was, first of all, a joint entrepreneur in the business of irrigating the river valleys, without which agriculture itself was impossible there.

Even a class-engaged state is often forced to restrain the ruling oligarchies - in their own own interests, as well as in the interests of the whole society, preventing it from sliding into chaos or preventing enslavement from the outside. If it weren't for this organic "above class", then no one would need it.

Meanwhile, the state also has its own, its own "class character". It relies on a certain layer of people who specialize in regulating social processes. This layer is called bureaucracy or bureaucracy. In fact, we are talking about another “large group of people”, which also has some relation to property, to the means of production. And it always behaves like a class in one way or another, although by its nature it is not a class. This is especially evident when the oligarchy is eliminated from the political and economic arena. This happened after 1917, when the "new-old" party-state bureaucracy came as close as possible to the position of the ruling class. This was often pointed out by various critics of Stalinism (from M. Djilas to O. Strasser). But Stalin himself understood this very well, speaking indignantly about the "damned caste" of party officials. And he tried to overcome this caste by different (sometimes very harsh) methods. Ultimately, the “caste” itself took over, which in 1987-1991 showed a maximum of class character, destroying the USSR for the sake of the upcoming “cutting” of the means of production. Nevertheless, by his actions, Stalin discouraged the “caste” from “sawing” the country for thirty years.

Therefore, it is not enough to remove the oligarchy from the historical stage, it is also necessary to prevent the possibility of realizing the class potential of the bureaucracy. This "large group of people" should be as small as possible. Its administrative influence should also be minimized. Various administrative departments should be replaced by colleges of experts, large administrative entities - by self-governing communities. As many powers as possible should go to the latter. And at the same time, it is necessary to strengthen the power of the ruler, the head of state (the Young Russian model "Tsar and Soviets"). Any head is objectively interested in rising above all groups and holding back the most powerful of them, who have always sought to turn him into a completely obedient figure, an instrument for realizing his own oligarchic aspirations. The smaller the bureaucratic "large group" of people, the weaker its influence, the greater and stronger the "personal" power of the head of state, the more successfully the state fulfills its above-class mission.

Alexander Eliseev

Already more than 60 years have passed since the discussion on the issues of Soviet linguistics took place in the Pravda newspaper (May - July 1950), in which comrade took part. I.V. Stalin. During this time, many critical attacks were made against Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and his work “Marxism and questions of linguistics” (both in prose and in “poetry”). I do not intend to repeat them here and, moreover, to popularize them, but I will only try to state my own in and the reasons for the appearance of this Stalinist work.

In 1950, the 33rd anniversary of the Great October socialist revolution. During this time, our country has gone a long way in the matter of socialist construction, won Great Victory and quickly recovered after the devastating war. Socialism has demonstrated its clear advantages and viability.

But this also meant that the provisions of classical Marxism, developed in the second half of the 19th century, were losing their relevance both for socialist construction within the country and for foreign policy. Soviet state. Classical Marxism described pre-monopoly capitalism in sufficient detail and adequately, and only in the most general terms drew the contours of the future communist society. Therefore, in the new historical conditions that took shape after the end of the Second World War, which significantly changed the face of the world, after capitalism had long passed into the monopoly stage and the collapse of the old colonial system began, the theory of classical Marxism partly began to lose its explanatory potential, in connection with which there was a need for further theoretical development. In addition, the practical experience of socialist construction in our country needed an appropriate theoretical understanding, especially since after the end of the war, the construction of socialism began in China and in a number of Eastern European countries, which, in turn, required the "binding" of Marxism to new concrete historical conditions that differed significantly from the conditions of pre-revolutionary Russia. It is precisely because of these circumstances that in the first post-war years theoretical questions of Marxism become especially topical.

Socio-historical practice is recognized in Marxism the most important criterion truth. The Second World War, as the most acute form of resolving the accumulated contradictions, became a serious test not only for states, peoples and political systems, but also for Marxism as a social theory. Therefore, when signs of discrepancy between the Marxist theory and socio-historical practice were found, it was impossible to exclude both the initial incompleteness and the fallacy of some provisions of the theory of classical Marxism.

Work on a serious revision of the provisions of classical Marxism in relation to new historical conditions and the creation theoretical basis building socialism must be preceded by an inventory and analysis of specific failures of the existing theory. It is in this that I see the true meaning and significance of the work of I.V. Stalin "Marxism and questions of linguistics". In this respect, she is not alone, closely (both in time and in goals) adjoins his other work - “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, published on the eve of the 19th Party Congress, which was devoted to questions of political economy (“ Moreover, I think that it is necessary to discard some other concepts taken from Marx's Capital, where Marx analyzed capitalism, and artificially glued to our socialist relations.» ).

Leading a huge country, I.V. Stalin, like K. Marx, could not create one major treatise for decades. Therefore, the theoretical works of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin are the result of his reflection on the current topical issues constantly emerging in the life of the country and society. The death of I.V. Stalin led to the fact that his two last major works turned out to be separate, isolated, out of the context of their logical continuation, and as a result, not completely, and therefore not quite correctly understood. Both contemporaries and descendants. This is the explanation for so many critical publications addressed to them.

One of these problems, which attracted the attention of I.V. Stalin and demanded serious theoretical consideration, there was a situation that had developed in Soviet linguistics, where, behind outwardly loud interpersonal conflicts in the academic environment, he revealed the original incompleteness of classical Marxism.

December 1949 marked the 15th anniversary of Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr's death, and in January 1950, the 85th anniversary of the birth of Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr. A number of publications (both in periodicals and in separate editions) and various scientific meetings were timed to coincide with these dates. As you know, the jubilee genre does not imply any extended criticism of the hero of the day and his work. Some followers of N.Ya. decided to take advantage of this. Marr for the administrative restoration of his scientific concept, the erroneousness of the provisions of which by that time had already been widely recognized in the scientific community.

The resulting conflict began to grow rapidly and quickly went beyond the boundaries of the actual academic environment. May 9, 1950 Pravda newspaper " in connection with the unsatisfactory state of Soviet linguistics"opened on its pages" free discussion in order to overcome the stagnation in the development of Soviet linguistics through criticism and self-criticism and give the right direction to further scientific work in this area". Discussion materials were published weekly on Tuesdays and completely occupied pages 3 and 4 of the newspaper (AS Chikobava's article, published on May 9, also occupied part of the 5th page). A total of 9 discussion sheets were published, and on July 4, 1950, the discussion was closed.

During this time, 24 participants in the discussion spoke on the pages of the Pravda newspaper (some of them spoke on July 4 for the second time); among the participants were 4 full members of the USSR Academy of Sciences (V.V. Vinogradov, I.I. Meshchaninov, S.P. Obnorsky, V.F. Shishmarev), one honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (I.V. Stalin), 6 academicians of the Academy of Sciences union republics (three of them were corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR); some participants in the discussion (B.A. Serebrennikov, S.P. Tolstov S.P.) later became academicians of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The only woman who took part in the discussion was E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk, who had recently become a doctor of sciences.

I.V. Stalin spoke three times on the pages of the Pravda newspaper on questions of linguistics. The first time - on June 20 with the article "Regarding Marxism in Linguistics", built in the form of answers to questions; the second time - on July 4 with the article "On Some Questions of Linguistics", containing answers to the questions of E.A. Krasheninnikova; and the last, third, time already outside the scope of the actual discussion - on August 2 with the article "Reply to Comrades", compiled from three letters in response to the questions received. That same summer, all these performances by I.V. Stalin with minor textual editorial changes were published in a separate brochure called "Marxism and questions of linguistics", from which quotes are given in this article.

His article “Regarding Marxism in Linguistics” I.V. Stalin begins by stating his research position: I am not a linguist ... As for Marxism in linguistics, as in other social sciences, I have a direct relationship to this» . And as a Marxist philosopher, he is primarily interested in the place of language among other socio-philosophical categories.

Answering in his article the first two questions posed (about the language as part of the superstructure and its class character), I.V. Stalin argues that language is not a superstructure on the basis and does not have a class character.

Still all social phenomena, to which, of course, language also belongs, shared Marxism between the base and the superstructure without a trace. At the same time, both the basis and the superstructure were described in sufficient detail, the dialectic of their relationship was considered.

The founders of Marxism left a whole series of arguments about language, but taken together, they do not represent a consistent and holistic view of language. and of language in Marxism and do not give an unambiguous answer to the question of the superstructural and/or class character of language. In his work I.V. Stalin cites a number of quotations from the works of K. Marx, F. Engels and P. Lafargue, which were referred to by the previous participants in the discussion, and which directly or indirectly indicate the superstructural and / or class nature of the language. At the same time, I.V. Stalin does not reject them; your interpretation.

In the course of his reasoning, I.V. Stalin convincingly shows that language, having certain features of both the basis and the superstructure, nevertheless, does not belong to either one or the other. And this means that, along with the base and the superstructure, there is something third, which includes at least the language. Moreover, this third is absolute terra incognita for Marxism: its composition is unknown (whether it includes anything else besides language), which means that its composition is unknown. internal structure, its relationship with the base and the superstructure is fundamentally unknown, this third one does not even have its own name. Those. this is a clear gap in Marxist theory. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that a serious theoretical development of the third one can lead to a significant restructuring of relations in the "base - superstructure" pair.

So major expansion classical Marxism did not go unnoticed by the readers of Pravda. This is said, for example, by those who came to I.V. Stalin questions E.A. Krasheninnikova.

Note: A.G. Spirkin (a Soviet philosopher, at the time of the discussion - candidate of science, employee of the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences) in his memoirs claims that he is the author of these questions. However, in order to avoid possible undesirable consequences for himself, he asked his wife, Krasheninnikova E.A., a graduate student at that time, to sign a letter to the Kremlin. (Without discussing the question of the moral side of the philosopher’s act, we only note that, having not dared to sign his questions to I.V. Stalin in 1950, in 1991 A.G. Spirkin quite boldly sneered at some events, that took place during the discussion and shortly thereafter.)

The first and main question, signed by E.A. Krasheninnikova, was formulated quite carefully (which, it seems, I.V. Stalin took advantage of): “ Your article convincingly shows that language is neither a basis nor a superstructure. Would it be correct to consider that language is a phenomenon inherent in both the base and the superstructure, or would it be more correct to consider language as an intermediate phenomenon?» . To which I.V. Stalin replies that language cannot be classified either in the category of bases or in the category of superstructures; nor can it be reckoned among the category of "intermediate" phenomena between the base and the superstructure, since such "intermediate" phenomena do not exist.

Our interpretation: There really are no intermediate (option: transitional) phenomena between the base and the superstructure, but there is an independent, along with the basis and superstructure, area of ​​the third (after all, the language was derived somewhere from the superstructure). Perhaps, realizing the radical nature of this approach, I.V. Stalin showed some caution and preferred not to articulate it so categorically, but only literally answered the question posed (sapienti sat).

Be that as it may, I.V. Stalin, the theoretical consequences of removing the language from the superstructure or not, but it was impossible to leave the language further as part of the superstructure, since all elements of the superstructure in a class society have a class character, i.e. a single national language in a class society is impossible, which clearly contradicts not only the Stalinist definition of a nation, but also the very essence of language as essential tool human communication. Meanwhile, none of the panellists who spoke before I.V. Stalin, did not dispute the superstructural character of the language, and only a few denied its class character. (Therefore, the supporters of N.Ya. Marr, who recognized both the superstructural and class character of language, were more consistent Marxists than their opponents, who recognized language as part of the superstructure, but did not recognize its class character.)

However, it seems that to I.V. Stalin continued to receive more and more questions, in which, of course, regular quotations from the works of K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin, demanding their clarification. As a result, I.V. Stalin had to speak again and already quite sharply. This refers to his answer to comrade A. Kholopov.

Our interpretation: This is a fictional collective character that turns classic quotes into dogmas. This conclusion was made based on the following observations:

1. Too speaking surname for such a role.

2. Nothing is known about the personality of A. Kholopov (however, who D. Belkin and S. Furer are, nothing is known either; other addressees of I.V. Stalin - E. Krasheninnikova and G. Sanzheev - are quite real persons; G. Sanzheev took part in the discussion on May 23).

3. In the text of the reply to A. Kholopov, the addressee of the letter is repeatedly mentioned in the third person, in connection with which he himself actually becomes a topic of discussion with the readers of the newspaper. Something similar is present in the response to the letters of D. Belkin and S. Furer, but there the mention of D. Belkin in the third person is justified by the need to indicate which question (out of the two authors of the two letters) is being answered.

4. Too harsh accusatory tone of public response to non-public questions asked unknown author; obvious enough to make a real living person an outcast in his work collective.

In this reply to A. Kholopov, comrade. I.V. Stalin gives examples of how the development of Marxism led to new formulations that are directly opposite to those that were originally given by K. Marx and F. Engels, and in this regard, he sharply criticizes "scholars and Talmudists", and also calls on everyone to the creative development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings: Marxism, as a science, cannot stand in one place - it develops and improves. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge, and consequently, its individual formulas and conclusions cannot but change with the passage of time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions corresponding to new historical tasks. Marxism does not recognize immutable conclusions and formulas that are obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism» . With these words I.V. Stalin ends his speeches on questions of linguistics, summing up the whole discussion at the same time.

It is precisely because of the inconsistency of the language with neither the basis nor the superstructure (which, perhaps, the classics of Marxism suspected, at least intuitively), apparently, that the philosophical consideration of the language in Marxism did not take place.

After all, if language is part of the superstructure, then it inevitably assumes a class character in a class society. And from here it is no longer difficult to conclude that the folk and aristocratic languages ​​of different nations closer friend to each other than the vernacular and aristocratic languages ​​of the same nation. Moreover, the Armenian and Georgian languages give relevant examples of this (which was recognized during the discussion).

Taking into account the thesis of K. Marx that a backward nation, looking at an advanced nation, sees its future in it in its essential features, it is quite possible to draw a conclusion about the unity, including the glottogonic process. And if the language is superstructural in nature, then the stages (stages) of this process must inevitably somehow correlate with the successive socio-economic formations. The technique of four-element analysis was only an unsuccessful (which was recognized by all participants in the discussion) attempt to comprehend this process of language creation, which was supposed to be unified.

The united proletarians of all countries will inevitably need a common language of communication. Therefore, the uniqueness of the language in the bright communist tomorrow is also beyond doubt. But in order for a single common language to arise as a result of a single glottogonic process, the processes of convergence (crossing) of languages ​​\u200b\u200bmust have prevailed over the processes of their divergence. From this quite naturally follows the hypothesis of the original plurality of languages, which in the course of a long historical development will merge into a single language of all mankind.

One can argue and disagree with N.Ya. Marr on very many questions, but what he proposed general the vision of the language as a whole is quite consistent with the provisions of classical Marxism. And those obvious inconsistencies, to which Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr comes as a result of his reasoning, are precisely rooted in his attribution of language to superstructural phenomena (and where else could N.Ya. Marr attribute language?). That is why the "New Teaching about Language" did not become Marxist linguistics. A genuine Marxist comprehension of language cannot take place without a philosophical comprehension of this very third, which includes language.

The identification of the third, along with the base and superstructure, revealed the presence of social phenomena that cannot be eliminated by any social revolutions and changes in socio-economic formations (when the base and superstructure are completely replaced), i.e. that inheritance, from which not d about should not be rejected under any historical cataclysms. The presence in this third language unequivocally speaks of the national-specific nature of this heritage.

Thus, the thesis of internationalism, justified at the very beginning of the formation of Marxist theory, turns out to be not absolute, not unconditional, but limited by its antithesis of patriotism. Limited not in the same way that the germs of the emerging new are limited by the remnants of the dying old, but in the same way that form and content, essence and phenomenon, necessity and chance, and a number of other categories of dialectics limit each other.

One of the features of the categories of dialectics is their ability to pass into each other, i.e. in its opposite. This property is also inherent in the pair "internationalism - patriotism", since the patriotism of one people (for example, "all-responsive") is, in fact, internationalism, and the internationalism of another people (for example, "proud") can have an openly chauvinistic content.

The contradiction between thesis and antithesis finds its resolution in a kind of synthesis. Therefore, it is necessary to search for a synthesis of internationalism and patriotism, both in theoretical and practical terms. Since we are talking about some historical constants that are outside the changeable basis and superstructure, then examples of such a synthesis should have already been in history, and they should have been paid close attention.

Orthodoxy appears to be one example of such a synthesis. Confessing a common (international) Christian idea, each autocephalous church has its own confessional (national-specific, patriotic) features, such as worship in its own language and its own pantheon of saints (along with the common Christian one). In this, Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism, where the national-specific, if present, is in an extremely reduced form. At the same time, the dominance of the international over the patriotic turns out to be vulnerable precisely in the national question. With regard to Catholicism, this was convincingly shown by the Reformation.

Marxism, having been born in the Western European cultural area and proclaiming the thesis of internationalism from the very beginning, inevitably carried "Catholic" features and the threat of a future split. (Retrospectively, here one can point to Maoism, Eurocommunism, the Juche ideas, and some others, which in 1950 had yet to take shape and develop. In each of these cases, tensions arose in inter-party relations, which in some cases passed to the interstate level, sometimes taking extremely sharp forms.) Working on the world stage within the framework of classical (“Catholic”) Marxism meant for the USSR playing on a foreign field, excessive overloads and inevitable defeat. Having become a world leader after the war, the Soviet Union was in dire need of a patriotic (“Orthodox”) version of Marxism, i.e. in its further development in terms of developing the antithesis "internationalism - patriotism" and in the need to study the still unknown third.

its role in resolving this important and difficult problem Soviet linguists had to play, since it became clear that language (and so far only language) is part of the third. At the same time, it was required not to prove loyalty to Marxism by the textual similarity of their conclusions with quotations from the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, but creatively develop Marxism.

Note: The publication, proposed during the discussion, of a possibly complete anthology of the statements of the classics of Marxism-Leninism about language was never implemented, and P. Lafargue's book was not republished, having long become a bibliographic rarity. The statements of K. Marx and F. Engels, from which one can draw a conclusion about the superstructural and / or class nature of the language, were not included in the anthologies on the history of linguistics and, in which there are special sections devoted to Marxism.

It was precisely this creative development of Marxism that N.Ya. Marr, who was not afraid to correct the classics. He " really wanted to be and tried to be a Marxist, but he failed to become a Marxist» . However, in science, the absence of a positive result is also a result. As he says the protagonist movie "9 Days of One Year" The experience ended in failure. Well, it's natural. But out of 100 possible ways to the truth one is tested and fallen away. Only 99 left". Consistently pursuing in his research the position of the superstructural and class nature of the language and, as a result, coming to obvious contradictions with practice, N.Ya. Marr actually proved by contradiction that language is not part of the superstructure and does not have a class character. However, being a philologist, he was unable to draw the appropriate philosophical conclusions (" failed to become a Marxist"). They were made by I.V. Stalin. Therefore, in in a certain sense, N.Ya. Marr and I.V. Stalin are co-authors.

In the meantime, this third was not comprehended philosophically, it was necessary to intensify the scientific research of the language included in it in order to create a theoretical basis for possible philosophical conclusions in the future. To start such linguistic research, it was necessary to practically administratively remove the language from the false superstructure-class paradigm, for which Marrism was resolutely rejected. At the same time I.V. Stalin rehabilitates the comparative historical method (" N.Ya. Marr blatantly defames the comparative historical method as "idealistic". Meanwhile, it must be said that the comparative historical method, despite its serious shortcomings, is still better than the really idealistic four-element analysis of N.Ya. Marr, because the first pushes you to work, to study languages, and the second pushes you only to lie on the stove and guess on the coffee grounds around the notorious four elements» ).

This restoration of the rights of comparative-historical linguistics is quite explicable from a Marxist standpoint.

First, historicism is basic methodological principle Marxism. Secondly, comparative-historical linguistics, like Marxism, had its source in German classical philosophy and therefore could well take on the main Marxist provisions (the role populace and personalities in history; driving causes of historical development; correlation between socio-historical practice, communication, language and thinking; and a number of others). Moreover, the adoption of these principles could certainly help overcome the crisis in which comparative historical linguistics found itself at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when it began to work in a different philosophical paradigm, when the relatively rich German classical philosophy was supplanted by philosophically extremely poor positivist approaches. .

All other paradigms of linguistics of that time carried a rather obvious contradiction to the basic principles of Marxism. Structuralism was obviously anti-dialectical, since in synchronic linguistics there is no place for movement as a resolution of contradictions. The individualism and idealism of the aesthetic approach could not be rethought in materialistic categories without losing their semantic core. Generativism, which was yet to make itself known in the 1950s, was far too mechanistic and individualistic (and even asocial) with its innate ideas.

Neo-Humboldtianism stands apart in this series. It, like Marxism and comparative historical linguistics, has its source in German classical philosophy. His idealistic categories have completely materialistic correspondences, which makes it possible to graft neo-Humboldtianism into Marxist linguistics (for example, “ the spirit of the people' correlates well with ' mental warehouse, manifested in the community of culture from Stalin's definition of a nation). Most likely, neo-Humboldtianism was at that time too non-technological for a particular science.

At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that while maintaining certain trends in the post-war life of the country (and in particular the fight against cringing before the West), the scientific approach " Native language and the formation of the spirit” could well be put on the agenda. In any case, after the exclusion of language from the superstructure, such an approach was no longer hostile-idealistic and fit perfectly into the formula "being determines consciousness." However, very soon, domestic linguists, who already knew foreign languages ​​by virtue of their specialty, started talking about the language in a foreign language for themselves and their Fatherland. This obviously did not contribute not only to the formation of their spirit as a folk, but also to the formation of a proper national point of view on the language.

Some "progressive-minded" researchers regard the appeal in 1950 to comparative historical linguistics as a certain step back in the development of the Russian science of language (despite the fact that they do not see any anachronism in the appeal to structuralism in 1960). However, it seems that real progress in science is different from the vain pursuit of the latest new-fangled "concept" in the West. It consists in choosing a richer philosophical system (which was Marxism-Leninism) as a worldview base and the scientific approach that most fully meets it (i.e., is able to realize its cognitive potential to the greatest extent) for solving urgent scientific problems.

I.V. Stalin did not confine himself to pointing out a specific scientific paradigm in answering the question of how Soviet linguistics should be. In the current situation, this was clearly not enough. Due to the lack of development of the philosophical foundations of the theory of language in Marxism, any serious linguistic work could be subjected to ideological attacks. To exclude this, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin pointed out the inadmissibility of the "Arakcheev regime" in linguistics, the need for a struggle of opinions and freedom of criticism in science. Only in this case does it become possible to break through to the comprehension of the unknown third.

To create such an atmosphere, it was necessary to show an example of appropriate behavior yourself. Therefore, subjecting N.Ya. Marra for " the grossest mistakes when he introduced elements of Marxism into linguistics in a distorted form”, I.V. Stalin admitted that N.Ya. Marra " there are separate good, talentedly written works, where, forgetting about his theoretical claims, he conscientiously and, I must say, skillfully explores separate languages. In such works one can find a lot of valuable and instructive. It is clear that this valuable and instructive should be taken from N.Ya. Marra and used» .

This had to be said also because by 1950 a significant part of the teachers and scientists in the field of linguistics, it was formed and grew precisely in line with the "New Doctrine of Language". Therefore, any "witch hunt" could completely deprive the country of both linguistics and linguists, not to mention the solution of problems of a higher order.

Despite criticism of the “Arakcheev regime” and recognition from I.V. Stalin merit N.Ya. Marr, the change of the scientific paradigm was not painless for the followers of Nikolai Yakovlevich; in a number of cases, the “Arakcheev regime” simply changed its sign, and some prominent scientists were dismissed from scientific and teaching activities. However, one should hardly look for the personal fault of I.V. Stalin.

In our opinion, the preservation of the “Arakcheev regime” indicates that it is associated not with any personalities (be it N.Ya. Marr, I.V. Stalin or someone else), but with ineradicable properties (attributes ) of the academic environment itself. And if this is so, then in order to develop science and the state (which was the main customer scientific research in the Soviet Union) in a number of cases, it was necessary to have an external (administrative, organizational, thematic, ideological, etc.) impact on this environment.

Note: Less than a year before the start of the discussion, in August 1949, a successful trial atomic bomb. In the course of work on it, representatives of the academic environment showed themselves in different ways. However, the state management of scientific developments in this area under the general supervision of L.P. Beria made it possible to solve the most complex scientific and technical problem in the shortest possible time.

I.V. Stalin revealed the reason for the failures of N.Ya. Marra. Now it was necessary to go forward again and storm the sky. However, not all domestic linguists were ready for this. To create a truly revolutionary theory means to go out into the squally winds that knock a person down, it means to fall, get up and move on (or, which is not excluded, fall and never get up again). But in the course of the discussion, it turned out that some of its participants were not averse to hiding from any bad weather in a cozy shell of “a language in and for themselves”, developing, adapting or simply retelling a concept popular in the West, and “not sticking out” either in the basis or into the add-on. Which, in the end, prevailed in Russian linguistics after several years.

As a result of the discussion and speeches, I.V. Stalin in Soviet science Comparative-historical linguistics took the place of the "New Doctrine of Language" as the leading direction of linguistic research. Another result of the events of the summer of 1950 was the establishment of the journal Questions of Linguistics, of which V.V. Vinogradov is one of the active participants in the discussion. The first issue of the journal was signed for publication on February 28, 1952 and opened with a large editorial article “The Tasks of Soviet Linguistics in the Light of the Works of I.V. Stalin and the journal Questions of Linguistics.

However, due to the death of I.V. Stalin and the first wave of de-Stalinization actual theoretical problems of Marxism and general linguistics not only were not resolved, but their very production was also filmed. Therefore, it seems that the internationalist Soviet Union did not have developed theoretical provisions and corresponding political practices that opposed the destructive forms of nationalism and separatism, which largely predetermined its disintegration along national borders as a result of the second wave of de-Stalinization. Today, when de-Stalinization is going to be actively continued under the slogans of tolerance and multiculturalism (that is, the liberal version of internationalism), the faults are already passing through the territory of Russia.

Critics I.V. Stalin and his works “Marxism and questions of linguistics” like to repeat that a half-educated seminarian (who became an honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences) cannot determine the direction of the development of science. They firmly believe that their diplomas of completed education and scientific degrees and titles reliably testify to their intellectual superiority over I.V. Stalin. I sincerely doubt their superiority de facto.

Bibliography:

1. Berezin F.M. History of Soviet Linguistics: Reader. - M.: Higher. school, 1981. - 351 p.
2. Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics XIX - XX centuries. in essays and extracts. - M.: Enlightenment, 1965. - Part II. - 495 p.
3. Lafargue P. Language and revolution. - M.-L.: Academia, 1930. - 100 p.
4. Stalin I.V. Marxism and questions of linguistics. - M.: Politizdat, 1950. - 114 p.
5. Stalin I.V. Marxism and the national question // Stalin I.V. Op. T. 2. - M.: Politizdat, 1951. - S. 290-367.
6. Stalin I.V. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. - M.: Politizdat, 1953. - 223 p.