For students of theories of culture and philosophy, the term of "philosophy of language" will ignite their memories for names such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes and the 'poststructuralist' as Jacques Derrida. By this term they will be reminded of the series of themes: about how arbitrarily the relationship between sign and meaning, about how meanings are prepared by differential relationship between the sign, about how consciousness is structured by signs, and so on. For students of Marxism, the term of "philosophy of language" is also reminded them of another theme, namely about how ideology is not simply a reflection of the economic interests of social classes, but it is shaped and constrained by language as realm of differences between the marks. Since almost the last century, the development of Continental philosophy shows strong influence of meaning's association of "philosophy of language" like this. Among Marxists, this consciousness began since Valentin Voloshinov in 1930 -- who firstly showed that the ideology of "structured like a language" -- until Slavoj Zizek at the beginning of 21st century who showed that our desires were socially structured via mechanism of language.
But in conventional narrative of "philosophy of language" as a consolidation of poststructuralism's history, there is one name that is rarely mentioned : Joseph Stalin. "Philosophy of language" or what is now tends to be equated with the notion of "poststructuralism" is not a short trip from Geneva to Paris (from Saussure to Derrida), but twisting journey from Geneva to Paris via Moscow. In the corner, Stalin is playing a role. I do not claim that without Stalin then there will be no poststructuralism and postmodernism (which is derived from poststructuralism). What I claim is that without Stalin then our picture of poststructuralism history and postmodernism formulation won't be complete.
Long before joining the Russian Left, Stalin was a poet. His expertise was in lyric poetry: about trees, wind and night. His lyric poems admired by famous Romantic poet from Georgia, Ilia Chavchavadze. Even some of them were published in the most influential literary journals in Russia in pre-Soviet era, Iveria. But his systematic reflections on new language appeared much later, after he joined the Russian Left, after he took power after Lenin's death. Marksizm i voprosy yazykoznaniya ("Marxism and Problems of Linguistics") is a short book about the nature of language, published in 1950. In it, Stalin considered the language's status within framework of Marxian's thought.
He criticized the deterministic view of Soviet linguist, Nicholas Marr. The linguists argued that language was merely superstructural phenomena. It means, the economic reality completely determines the phenomenon of language, changes in economic reality necessitates a change in total reality of language. Therefore, Marr argued that class differences were also reflected in differences in language. The transition from capitalist production's modus to socialist in Russia must be followed by a linguistic revolution, namely the removal of bourgeois Russian language and its transformation into a "proletariat language". Stalin criticized Marr assumptions. Language was not a superstructural effect of economic reality.
In his work, Stalin explained how language was the product of a historical social relations and cross-class patterned. He gave some historical illustrations, among others, about French in the era before and after 1789 Revolution. While the Revolution marked the transition to a capitalist feudal order, France language was still more or less the same. Indeed there's a new vocabulary and new idiomatic phrases after Revolution in 1789, but the French language syntax remains the same. Similarly with Russia language condition before and after October Revolution of 1917. This shows, for Stalin, how changes in class composition does not necessarily result in a change of language. From here Stalin drew the conclusion that the language couldn't be regarded as a superstructural effect of the base. In addition, Stalin also learned how language had emerged since pre-formation of social classes era (communal production mode). This further confirms his conclusion that the language goes beyond logic of class.
If language is not one of superstructure components, then where is the language in Marxian historical materialism's scheme? At the base? Not really. Stalin saw that language similar to the means of production, as well as factory machinery. There is no such thing as "bourgeois machine" or "proletarian machine". There is only a machine that can be used in capitalist or socialist system of labor division. Meanwhile the machine itself, in-itself, is neutral in class. Similarly with language, according to Stalin. Neutrality is possible because the language already existed before class, ie since the primitive communal society. Language is a "social space" where the production and reproduction of community life occur. Therefore, based on the conclusions of Stalin, the language is not part of superstructure and base because language is a forum where both are being realized. Ideology and reproduction mechanism fulfillment are considered, expressed and discussed through the language. Because language is a place where all social relationships occur, then the language underlies all social phenomena, including the base and the superstructure. Language can't be blamed on political economy basis and ideologically. In other words, in postmodernist phraseology, language has a "relative autonomy" of the base and superstructure.
In addition to affirming the language"autonomy" of economistic reduction, Stalin also showed that the language was involved in structuring the ideology and public awareness. This is because all of the conversations and reflections should be through medium of language. Therefore, the structure of ideology and culture have always been contaminated by language. There is no pure thought without language. Therefore, there is no ideology without language. This outlook anticipates language approach which later popularized by the structuralist and poststructuralist of France.
There are three things donated by Stalin to poststructuralism and postmodernism:
- Rejection of the reduction of language problem in class problem and political economy in general.
- Recognition of language as basic vehicle for social interaction surrounding (and hence also beyond) base and superstructure.
- Recognition of constitutive language characteristic to consciousness, culture and ideology.
What can be learned from the 'case of Stalin'? The most brilliant, of course, is that the writing of poststructuralism and postmodernism history need to be overhauled and enriched. However, this case also teaches us something important about the relationship between Marxism and 'the outside of Marxism'. It is clearly, that Marxism -- the general theory of society development -- is not a theory of everything. There are many things uncovered by Marxism, such as: the composition of subatomic of baryons, the properties of alkali metal, semantic implications of studies in pragmatics (pronouns which are rooted in the identity of speakers) and many other things.
To study domain outside Marxism, Marxists often take one of these two options: to impose Marxism theory scheme into it (vulgar gesture) or do not care at all its implications for Marxism (agnostic attitude). Both options are equally problematic. The first option will only generate a pseudo-science, while the second option will deprive Marxism of its roots in the totality of reality. In the case of Stalin, the first choice tends to the fore. This can be seen in Stalin's involvement in the Lysenko affair.
In the early 1930s, Stalin was fascinated by the view of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet biologist who believed that wheat production could be enhanced through the creation of new breeding techniques. Lysenko justified this technique with a myriad of Marxist jargon and vulgarly imposed the "law of dialectics" to biological sciences.
Stalin gladly sponsored him to do "agricultural revolution" in the whole of Russia. Lysenkoism proved unsuccessful and realized nothing more than a pseudo-science. Therefore, the choice of Stalin's linguistic problems arguably is more satisfying. With his theory of language, Stalin seemed to give the wind for linguistics and guarantee the immunity from party bureaucratic intervention. Stalin's assurance was immediately greeted by various branches of other studies such as mathematics and logic. Experts mathematics and logic could decipher his teachings without necessarily associated with a class analysis and Marxian political economy. It means, acknowledging "the outside Marxism 'is a step forward. For Marxist intellectual tasks is not to impose Marxism in every way, but finding Marxism in all things, finding the components of the knowledge of non-Marxist which -- if they are assembled and projected macro -- will generate and fulfill Marxism. Here we need to draw a critical inspiration from postmodernist of Kremlin.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa022315]
... do not start your morning with your silly fantasy, Cisca! For example: to compare who is more sexy in between them, with one thing in common between them is they are the Russian billionaires with poorly maintained teeth. Try to find out whether this is due to groundwater conditions in Russia or due to their unhealthy personal lifestyle: cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, maybe?
Charles Bronson is not American, stupid!) 
... 
