Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

tion: instruments of production manifest, just as languagedoes, a kind of indifference towards classes and can serveequally different classes of society, both old and new. Doesthis circumstance provide ground for including languagein the category of instruments of production? No, itdoes not.At one time, N. Y. Marr, seeing that his formula — “languageis a superstructure on the base” — encountered objections,decided to “reshape” it and announced that “languageis an instrument of production.” Was N. Y. Marr right inincluding language in the category of instruments of production?No, he certainly was not.The point is that the similarity between language and instrumentsof production ends with the analogy I have justmentioned. But, on the other hand, there is a radicaldifference between language and instruments of production.This difference lies in the fact that whereas instruments ofproduction produce material wealth, language produces nothingor “produces” words only. To put it more plainly, peoplepossessing instruments of production can produce materialwealth, but those very same people, if they possess a languagebut not instruments of production, cannot produce materialwealth. It is not difficult to see that were language capableof producing material wealth, wind-bags would be the richestmen on earth.2. QUESTION. Marx and Engels define language as “theimmediate reality of thought,” as “practical, . . . actual consciousness.”12 “Ideas,” Marx says, “do not exist divorced fromlanguage.” In what measure, in your opinion, shouldlinguistics occupy itself with the semantic aspect of language,35