Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

Lenin, as we know, vigorously protested and declared thathe was fighting against bourgeois culture, and not againstnational languages, the necessity of which he regarded asindisputable. It is strange that some of our comrades shouldbe trailing in the footsteps of the Bundists.As to a single language, the necessity of which Lenin isalleged to deny, it would be well to pay heed to the followingwords of Lenin:“Language is the most important means of human intercourse.Unity of language and its unimpeded developmentform one of the most important conditions for genuinely freeand extensive commercial intercourse appropriate to moderncapitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the populationin all its separate classes.” 7It follows that our highly respected comrades have misrepresentedthe views of Lenin.Reference, lastly, is made to Stalin. The passage fromStalin is quoted which says that “the bourgeoisie and its nationalistparties were and remain in this period the chiefdirecting force of such nations.” 8 This is all true. The bourgeoisieand its nationalist party really do direct bourgeoisculture, just as the proletariat and its internationalist partydirect proletarian culture. But what has this to do with the“class character” of language? Do not these comrades knowthat national language is a form of national culture, that anational language may serve both bourgeois and socialistculture? Are our comrades unaware of the well-known formulaof the Marxists that the present Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussianand other cultures are socialist in content and nationalin form, i.e., in language? Do they agree with this Marxistformula?19