Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

N. Y. Marr’s “disciples” begun to talk about this only now,after the discussion opened? Why did they not see to itbefore? Why did they not speak about it in due time openlyand honestly, as befits scientists?Having admitted “some” errors of N. Y. Marr, his“disciples,” it appears, think that Soviet linguistics can onlybe advanced on the basis of a “rectified” version of N. Y.Marr’s theory, which they consider a Marxist one. No, saveus from N. Y. Marr’s “Marxism”! N. Y. Marr did indeedwant to be, and endeavoured to be, a Marxist, but he failedto become one. He was nothing but a simplifier and vulgarizerof Marxism, similar to the “proletcultists” or the “Rappists.”N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics the incorrect, non-Marxist formula that language is a superstructure, and gothimself into a muddle and put linguistics into a muddle.Soviet linguistics cannot be advanced on the basis of an incorrectformula.N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics another and alsoincorrect and non-Marxist formula, regarding the “classcharacter” of language, and got himself into a muddle andput linguistics into a muddle. Soviet linguistics cannot beadvanced on the basis of an incorrect formula which is contraryto the whole course of the history of peoples and languages.N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics an immodest,boastful, arrogant tone alien to Marxism and tending towardsa bald and off-hand negation of everything done in linguisticsprior to N. Y. Marr.N. Y. Marr shrilly abused the comparative-historical methodas “idealistic.” Yet it must be said that, despite its seriousshortcomings, the comparative-historical method is neverthelessbetter than N. Y. Marr’s really idealistic four-element31