Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

grammatical system and its basic stock of words, in all essentialsit has remained as the basis of modern Russian.And this is quite understandable. Indeed, what necessityis there, after every revolution, for the existing structure ofthe language, its grammatical system and basic stock of wordsto be destroyed and supplanted by new ones, as is usuallythe case with the superstructure? What object would therebe in calling “water,” “earth,” “mountain,” “forest,” “fish,”“man,” “to walk,” “to do,” “to produce,” “to trade,” etc., notwater, earth, mountain, etc., but something else? What objectwould there be in having the modification of words in alanguage and the combination of words in sentences follownot the existing grammar, but some entirely different grammar?What would the revolution gain from such an upheavalin language? History in general never does anything of anyimportance without some special necessity for it. What, oneasks, can be the necessity for such a linguistic revolution, ifit has been demonstrated that the existing language and itsstructure are fundamentally quite suited to the needs of thenew system? The old superstructure can and should be destroyedand replaced by a new one in the course of a few years,in order to give free scope for the development of the productiveforces of society; but how can an existing languagebe destroyed and a new one built in its place in the course ofa few years without causing anarchy in social life and withoutcreating the threat of the disintegration of society? Who buta Don Quixote could set himself such a task?Lastly, one other radical distinction between the superstructureand language. The superstructure is not directly connectedwith production, with man’s productive activity. It isconnected with production only indirectly, through the economy,through the base. The superstructure therefore reflects8