Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

geoisie.” 4 Certain comrades conclude from this passage thatEngels denied the necessity of a common, national language,that he believed, consequently, in the “class character” oflanguage. True, Engels speaks here of dialects, not languages,fully realizing that, being an offshoot of the national language,a dialect cannot supplant the national language. But apparently,these comrades regard the existence of a differencebetween a language and a dialect with no particularenthusiasm. . . .It is obvious that the quotation is inappropriate, becauseEngels here speaks not of “class languages” but chiefly ofclass thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion,politics. It is perfectly true that the thoughts, ideals, customs,moral principles, religion and politics of bourgeois and proletariansare directly antithetical. But what has this to dowith national language, or the “class character” of language?Can the existence of class antagonisms in society serve as anargument in favour of the “class character” of language, oragainst the necessity of a single national language? Marxismsays that a common language is one of the cardinal earmarksof a nation, although knowing very well that there areclass antagonisms within the nation. Do the comrades referredto recognize this Marxist thesis?References are made to Lafargue, 5 and it is said that inhis pamphlet The French Language Before and After the Revolutionhe recognizes the “class character” of language anddenies the necessity of a national language common to thewhole people. That is not true. Lafargue does indeed speakof a “noble” or “aristocratic language” and of the “jargons”of various strata of society. But these comrades forget thatLafargue, who was not interested in the difference betweenlanguages and jargons and referred to dialects now as “artifi-14