political testament AND PHILOSOPHY OF STALIN
Speech presented at the conference by Hans Heinz Holz
Lenin always said that Marxism is not a rigid dogmatic propositions: on the contrary, Marxism, in its theories, following the change of the real relations and consequences derived target practice. The dialectic is the sort of theory that describes, in the variety of its components and moments, the connection of all that changes over time, as the basis of their performance regularly. Dialectical materialism, for its general ontological presuppositions, it is necessary to produce new interpretations of reality. Every theory, in fact, is the interpretation of a state of affairs described in (1).
The two later writings of Stalin, between 1950 and 1952, ("Marxism and the problems of language" - "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR") have to be precisely in this perspective: from a contemporary reflection on the state in actual fact, these writings establish a new situation, both economic and social ideological, historical and scientific. Since shortly after he died, Stalin was not able to translate his thoughts into practice and so the works in question appear to be, so to speak, his theoretical texts. In
counter criticism of Stalin and Khrushchev against the period of stagnation that ensued (2), the stress that came from those writings were removed and remained without effect on the svogimento of Marxist theory. However, I am of the opinion that in those writings there is a theoretical heritage not denied, that it is worth re. On this occasion I shall confine myself to the scientific and ideological initiatives, on issues related to Marxism, referring to the science of linguistics (3).
It seems to me that the propositions of Stalin to move in a space defined by three points: first
, determination of the structural description of the relationship between being and consciousness - that is an expression of ontology Marxist
secondly, the criticism destructive of certain propositions school, dominant in linguistics and its School of Marr, the revival of discussion about the phenomena, ie a signal in the direction of the recovery of scientific research in controversial matters;
third of the pilloried ' bureaucratic attitude, which is affected each control system, as well as the impulse to make a turn and organizational activity party in the state.
In relation to these three aspects, I accept as justified the supposition that it was Stalin's intention, after the victory in the Great Patriotic War and after stabilization realizzatasi in the early postwar years, to drive the Soviet Union to a new phase construction of socialism. The death of Stalin he dropped by the wayside this process, which only a few had some insight.
After the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, the works of Stalin were burdened by an unspoken taboo, which contributed to the decline of the theoretical social sciences major from Soviet ideological point of view.
But let us now examine in detail these aspects of the discussion on Marxism and issues related to linguistics.
The fundamental model of relationships with the consciousness of being in the Marxist philosophy is represented by the pattern of base and superstructure.
The fundamental proposition "being determines consciousness" is explained by historical materialism in the sense that the business relationship (ie the relations of production in which man realizes his "exchange with the organic nature", the reproduction of his life as an individual and as a species) are based, which makes the formal determination superstructural forms that are appropriate - the legal system, the contents of the vision of the world, art, morality, religion, etc.. - As they reflect ideals, which in turn can objectivity in institutions and processes materials (for example, works of art or, respectively, scientific research, sports, etc.).. Through this mediation effect is also achieved a return of the superstructure on the base: in fact, the superstructure is affected by base change with it, and depending upon it at different stages in history (4).
For the foundation of a theory of ideology and tolerates this pattern is sufficient to differentiate sufficiently to be able to think the multiplicity of historical phenomena (5).
In connection with the growing importance of science as a force production had become a problem the fact that the contents and forms of consciousness - such as knowledge of natural, mathematical relationships, the conditions of logical thought - that arise in the context of superstructural activities, despite being often contaminated by ideological representations, however, remain their values, regardless of changes in the base.
The ratio of absolute truth, its ideology and in many cases should not be determined by unique borders. The ontological status of a logical principle - such as that of identity - of a mathematical regularity - for example, that the sum of the angles of a triangle - or a natural constant, must be brought into a system its a materialistic explanation for all these problems, the pattern of relationship base / superstructure is not sufficient to elaborate the philosophy of dialectical materialism.
In relation to these issues that had been accumulating, a decisive step in the theoretical development of Marxism was made by Stalin when - in relation to a paradigmatic case - he put into question the linearity of the relationship of the key base / superstructure.
In fact, the language offers at first glance the image of a historical variability and dependency on social conditions. The vocabularies exhibit changes of meaning, which are to indicate changes in work processes, technological innovations or changes social. For example, in the German sense of the word network, the fishing net is extended to interactive network of flows of information, through an earlier transition to the telephone network, or even the word Frau, from the original meaning of the domain goes to that of female or female person.
There are jargons, tied to specific environments or professions, or special language. There are ways of speaking closely related to short periods of time and will die with them. There is a learned language next to the spoken language and regional dialects. In short, we have many linguistic phenomena that we can count between superstructural phenomena and allow themselves to relate to specific developments of the relations production: this is the basic conceptions of phenomenal language of the School of Marr, which is the idea that the language should be studied as a manifestation of the superstructure.
For all of this is very significant from the theoretical point of view that, in the case of Stalin language has stressed the inadequacy of the schema base / superstructure. He states succinctly: "Each base has its superstructure, corresponding to it [...] If the base is changed and if it is put aside, then it also changes its superstructure, and so also arises a superstructure corresponding to the new basis. In this respect, the language is different in substance from the superstructure "(6). To illustrate this, Stalin used the Russian language.
"In a certain part of the vocabulary, the Russian language has changed and he did get rich in the sense of a detectable amount of new words and expressions that have arisen in relation to the advent of the new socialist production, the emergence the new state, the new socialist culture, the new social life, new moral and, finally, in connection with the development of technology and science. He changed the meaning of a series of words and expressions which have acquired a new meaning, a number of old words disappeared from the vocabulary. However, with regard to the basic pool terminology and the grammatical construction of the Russian language, which together represent the bulk of a language, not only with the provision of non-capitalist basis have also been set aside or replaced by new grammatical structures or a new heritage of terminology, but well on the other hand, remained safe and sound, or have experienced some other significant form of change "(7).
Stalin sets four characteristics that differentiate the language from the superstructure:
- constancy of the fundamental terminology and heritage of the fundamental structure grammar, which goes beyond the limits of the economic base;
- origin of language is not a base but from the entire proceed to a historical language community;
- function of a language as an instrument of understanding, beyond the distinctions of class;
- immediate connection with the production of language.
It shows that, with the language, not only we are faced with an environment that differs from the base and superstructure, but also that this sphere - in terms of logical and ontological - is assumed to consist of a specific historical formation and its development.
"The exchange of thoughts is a constant need for life and recognized as being important, because in its absence would not be possible [...] the persistence of social production. Without a language that is understandable the company and each of its members, the production would collapse and the company would cease to exist as such [...] The language belongs to those social phenomena that are operating as long as the company continues "(8).
schema base / superstructure is a structural model of social relations. According to Marx, Engels and Lenin, Stalin shows that the spatial metaphor can not be understood as a unidirectional relationship between the levels of the type of cause / effect relationship, as it includes, in reality, even a relationship of mutual influence (9).
"The superstructure is created from the base, but in no way means that you simply limits reflect the latter [...] On the contrary, once coming into the world, the superstructure becomes an active force in the sense that actively contributes to assume that the basis of its specific form and grow stronger [...] On the other hand could not be otherwise. The superstructure is produced from the base so that the servant, because the active help, because it assumes the shape and consolidate itself and contribute actively to combat the survival of the old base and its superstructure "(10).
In this simplicity, which will support the active reaction of the superstructure on the base, seems to be hiding a banality. But who knows the controversial debates about the role the superstructure, must recognize that in the propositions is enucleated the quintessential Stalinist schema, against all the lists of the discussion. Canon is what we understand by itself. But Stalin's thesis goes further.
"In short, the language can not be accepted by neither the base nor by the superstructure, nor can it be considered an intermediate category between base and superstructure, for the simple reason that this category does not exist" (11).
So neither base nor superstructure and even intermediate category - this can not mean anything except that there is a real which is not adequately focused on a metaphor that comes from architecture. Language as a medium of exchange should be viewed in analogy with the tools of production. As a condition of social production, the language as a whole is a productive force (mental), which allows you to turn science into a productive force and function as a medium of structural phenomena, as the bearer of thoughts ("reality of thought") .
Woven in every other area of \u200b\u200bthe social, language is an ideal building material relations in which they represent, and indeed is itself a material relationship, because of the universal process of constitution-real (12).
The functional description of the language, all reality, which Hegel called objective spirit, is captured as a "material relationship" and the beginning not the mechanistic materialism recon tangible asset (business objective): In relation to language is essential to show a constitutive condition of the dialectics.
Now imposes establish an indirect link with the critique of Gramsci on Bukharin. The eleventh part
Prison Notebooks dedicated to the "Wise People" is an indictment, penetrating and in many ways succeeded, against the causal mechanism, but at the same time represents a time in favor of this dialectic as a form of historical dela processuality real.
The question, centrally Gramsci asked is the following: "How did the historical movement based on the structure?" (13).
E 'in precisely this sense that Stalin escapes the life of the mechanical relationship to the language base / superstructure and submit to the rigid framework of the dynamics of historical movement (without, thereby, reduce to nothing the function of the explanatory framework, in relation to the construction building name).
Gramsci Bukharin criticism stressing the "wise people" missing "a discussion of any of the dialectic" (14).
Marxism exhibits a philosophy ", since it exceeds (and past it includes in itself the vital elements) and the idealism that the traditional materials, expressions of the old society "(15). On the contrary, Bukharin put it in continuity with the old metaphysical materialism.
seems to me that the statements of Stalin, in his paper on" Marxism in linguistics, is confined in the context of developing a philosophical conception of dialectical materialism, which has its other hubs in Leninism "statement of Hegel's Science of Logic" and Gramsci's "Introduction to Philosophy" (16).
This is sufficient, but an adequate conception of dialectic, which does not treat her as a special case of logic, but rather as a constitutive principle of a world view, according to the proper and clear understanding Gramsci, is the equivalent of a correct theoretical political action, and in this sense we must also understand the thinking of Stalin on the dialectic, the right questions of Leninism.
Despite the ideological meaning of the language problem, one might wonder whether the cheStalin put at stake the authority about a subject as peripheral to a political point of view. Besides, Stalin himself proves to have no intention to enter into the domain of linguistics, for which certainly had no powers, but rather, that Stalin was interested in certain fundamental questions of Marxism.
"I am not a scholar of linguistics and of course not I can not fully meet the companions. Instead, with regard to Marxism in linguistics and in other social sciences, are directly implicated. "(17).
With this makes clear reference to the systematic philosophy, which embraces more than one area. However, through this observation is not fully clear why delo spectacular intervention of the head of the party in a scientific discussion.
The propositions of Stalin, in fact, do not refer only to the systematic ontological, but also represent a direct criticism of the practice of scientific research in the USSR and Thus, to address issues of social concern.
To understand the intention behind the intervention in the debate language, shall also be taken the next step economic problems of socialism.
One can easily agree that the problem posed to Stalin had been agreed with him (as happens on the other hand, when it comes to interviews with personalities in positions of responsibility). The question about the adequacy of the debate - controversial - Pravda, Stalin gives an opportunity to explain himself with unquestionable clarity: "First of all, the discussion has made it quite clear that language in the organs, the Centre and in the republics, dominated by a regime that is not good neither for science nor for scientists. Even the most mild criticism of the existing state of things in Soviet linguistics, even the most timid attempt at a critique of the so-called "new learning" in linguistics, are hindered and persecuted by the leaders in the field of language environments. For a critical view of the legacy of NJ Marr, the slightest disapproval of the doctrine of NJ Marr, have lost their place in linguistics researchers responsible, or have been relegated to less important assignments. Linguists are called to responsible positions not for their competence, but on the basis of full recognition dela doctrine of NJ Marr. E 'universally recognized that no science can develop and achieve good results without a clash of opinions, without freedom of criticism (my sott. HHH). But this rule has been universally recognized blatantly ignored and trampled upon. It consists of a closed personality infallible leaders who, having made safe from any possible criticism, began to administer arbitrarily, provoking riots "(18).
cite this step was necessary to realize what was the pulse that Stalin sought to give the public life. The situations he considered anything but in order, were not specific to a particular scientific discipline, rather it was widespread in every sphere of society following the process of bureaucratization of the state and the Party. During the construction of the socialist economy, which was completed in a centralized manner and under the pressure of time, probably a bureaucratic process that was to some extent inevitable. The fact that exactly this process assume hypertrophic size was to be ascribed to the particular conditions in which the construction of socialism in the USSR took place - the problems of this certainly could not be discussed in this text, however, depends on an analysis (19).
The harshness with which Stalin expressed himself means that he understood the urgency of the problem and which you would come time to act to change the situation. Stalin made the same choice of words is to say that it was not only the clash between scientific schools. Stalin spoke of system-Araktsceev (20). Araktsceev was a man of the Russian state at the time of the reactionary Holy Alliance, which - similarly to Metternich, but in an even harder - he built a despotic military regime and the police without any hesitation. It is clear that it would be wholly disproportionate use of Araktsceev symbolically as if the question had been limited to relations between universities.
to account, with a word, almost defiant tone exacerbated the paradox, we see this: Stalin gave the signal to a process of social change that if we wanted to use the jargon journalism sponsored by the Twentieth Congress, might be called de-Stalinization - term, however, false and misleading.
intervention on personal and organizational structures established, despite the deep shock of the still weak Soviet society after the war, however, was something desirable to smooth the transition to another phase of the construction of socialism. The discussion in the scientific field, marginal in terms of political and social, could give a signal to start to prepare with care and awareness, a change in the relationship and make room for new ideas in the collective work.
I am aware that The first objection is that sources with dates could not be done anything that had real value demonstration. The major historical hypotheses have precisely this economic status. But the text on Marxism and linguistic diversity should be seen in relation to the Constitution of 1936 and thereby acquires plausibility of the hypothesis that the tensions of the period after the war, the forms imposed by the exceptional period should be abandoned and that is the beginning of a search terrain characterized by less social conflict (21). Such an interpretation allows a different explanation of the period, more than at the usual publications, which outlines everything in black or white, so with stiff opposition.
In conclusion, we have yet to establish the parallel between this paper and that, two years later, on the economic problems of the USSR. Of course, I do not care to make a comparison with the political-economic content, it would be an investigation of its own. However, there are signs that are clearly recognizable by a new style in public controversy and in the maturation of the reviews. The theme in the foreground is the drafting of a manual of political economy: what is expressed in the theses of the paper are the views and socio-economic strategies and policies. But now the problem is no longer break the stagnant institutional forms stiff to earn the prize of criticism (22). Rather, now it comes to formulating a project, theoretically more correct and clear conceptually, the practice of building socialism.
The polemical tone, which in the written language sometimes peeps, totally lacking in dealing with the economy. On the other hand Stalin expressly says: "Some comrades in the course of discussion, with too much zeal for critical analysis of the rough draft of the book and the authors blame for their failures and their mistakes, this would put the failure of the project. Of course it is true that there are mistakes and shortcomings in the manual - but that happens to every big opera "(23): Only answering
Jaroscenko, Stalin is shown ironic and violent, accusing hard to have revived some errors buchariniani. (Who, with an eye to the next historical development, Stalin reads this, can see the rejection of an advance Jaroscenko critical to Khrushchev). The discovery of the contradictions between productive forces and relations of production in socialism also means opening up to the cancellation of the differences - and the discussion there is also an open criticism of Stalin. But these states expressly: "I think for the correction of the draft manual, it was necessary to set up a committee not numerically large, which were part of not only the author of the manual and its supporters, in order to have they secure the majority in the discussions, but their opponents who were fierce critics of the project "(24).
A company led by knowledge that allows scientific socialism, does not come at once. It assumes that men constantly broaden and deepen their cultural horizons, in order to have general interests and take history into their hands. This would, yes, genuine democracy and effective for the first time. In this respect we mention again Stalin.
"It 's necessary to reach a growth of cultrurale society capable of ensuring a multilateral development of his ability will physical and mental growth through which members of society have the opportunity to get an education that can transform them into active coattori social development [...] You might think that you can not reach a similar cultural growth of the members of society without serious changes in the current work status. For this purpose it is first necessary to reduce the workday to six hours, and then to five. This is necessary to give every member of society enough free time to build a multilateral culture. For this purpose it is also necessary to introduce, as compulsory, universal education, a polytechnic, so that every member of society actually has the possibility to freely choose a job and that not a single moment of his life is dedicated to work but it is. Furthermore, it is necessary, too, profoundly improve the system of housing and increase by at least double, if not more, wages of workers and employees: The goal is to increase the ability to purchase goods needed by the masses through a lower prices. These are the basic conditions to make the transition to communism "(25).
with an eye to a developed socialist society, which can be engendered by Communism, ending the theoretical work of Stalin. We must not discharge this legacy exactly where we want to honor those who died fighting for this goal.
Hans Heinz Holz
Notes (1) On this, cf. notations programmatic A. Hüllinghorst in TOPOS 22 "Lenin" [forthcoming].
(2) VK Gossweiler, Die Chronik oder Die-Taubenfuss Chruschtschowiade, Monaco 2002.
(3) Josef W. Stalin, Werke, vol. XV, Dortmund 1979: "Marxism and the problems of language," pp. 163ss. - "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", pp. 292 ff .. For international echoes of these writings, it is important to note the immediate and spontaneous positive reaction of the linguists, with regard to Germany, should be highlighted the positive response of Werner Krauss, a distinguished scholar of Roman civilization, whose jurisdiction of substance, clarity, philosophical and political sensitivity, some are out of the question. See Werner Krauss, Das wissenschaftliche Werk, Berlin 1984. See also HHHolz, Werner Krauss' sprachphilosophische Standortbestimmung in Hermann Hofer, Thilo Karger, Christa Riehn (editors), Werner Krauss, Tübingen and Basel 2003, p. 143 ff.
(4) The relationship between base and superstructure, cf. Kuusinen et alii, basic principles of Marxism, Rome, 1969 Vol. 2, pp. 18ss.; A. Sceptulin, Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Moscow 1977, pp. 271 ff.; Friedrich Tomberg, Basis und Uberbau, Darmstadt and Neuwied 1974, Institute for Social Science at the CC of the SED, Grundlagen des historischen Materialismus, Berlin 1976; Authors Various Marxistisch-leninistische Philosophie, Berlin and Frankfurt 1979, pp. 446 ff.
(5) On the subject of a theory of ideology, cf. A. Mazzone, issues of ideology theory, Messina 1981, various authors, Erkenntnis und Wahrheit, Berlin 1983; TOPOS 17, "Ideologies", Naples 2001.
(6) Stalins Werke, Band 15: 165.
(7) Op. p. 165s.
(8) Op cit. p. 186.
(9) See, for example, nel'ambito of bourgeois, the model levels which appear in Der Aufbau der realen Welt, Berlin 1940 by N. Hartman, but also by the same author Neue Wege der Ontologie, Stuttgart 1947.
(10) Stalin op. cit. p. 166.
(11) Stalin op. cit. p. 203.
(12) HH Holz, Language and World, Frankfurt 1953 pp. 30SS.
(13) A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Torino 1977 p.1422.
(14) Gramsci, op. cit., p. 1424.
(15) Gramsci, op. cit., p.
1425 (16) To see Lenin. HH Holz, Einheit und Widerspruch, vol. 3, Stuttgart 1997, pp. 361 ff. For Stalin, cf. HH Holz, "Stalin als des Theoretiker Leninismus" in Streitbarer Materialismus 22 May 1998, pp. 21 ff.
(17) Stalin, op. cit., p. 164.
(18) Stalin, op. cit., p. 197.
(19) On this cf. HH Holz, Loss, and future of socialism, Milano 1994.
(20) Stalin, op. cit., p.198.
(21) The Soviet Constitution 1936, cf. my contribution to the Conference of the Cultural Marche (May 31, 2001).
(22) In concluding the debate, Stalin softened criticism of Marr and gave proof of his great respect for the researcher (see Stalin, op. Cit. P. 209). Stalin also attributed responsibility for the stagnation of the regime-Araktsceev nominated for the second time (see Stalin, op. Cit. P. 210).
(23) Stalin, op. cit., p. 337.
(24) Stalin, op. cit., p. 338.
(25) Stalin, op. cit., p. 359.
Speech presented at the conference by Hans Heinz Holz
Lenin always said that Marxism is not a rigid dogmatic propositions: on the contrary, Marxism, in its theories, following the change of the real relations and consequences derived target practice. The dialectic is the sort of theory that describes, in the variety of its components and moments, the connection of all that changes over time, as the basis of their performance regularly. Dialectical materialism, for its general ontological presuppositions, it is necessary to produce new interpretations of reality. Every theory, in fact, is the interpretation of a state of affairs described in (1).
The two later writings of Stalin, between 1950 and 1952, ("Marxism and the problems of language" - "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR") have to be precisely in this perspective: from a contemporary reflection on the state in actual fact, these writings establish a new situation, both economic and social ideological, historical and scientific. Since shortly after he died, Stalin was not able to translate his thoughts into practice and so the works in question appear to be, so to speak, his theoretical texts. In
counter criticism of Stalin and Khrushchev against the period of stagnation that ensued (2), the stress that came from those writings were removed and remained without effect on the svogimento of Marxist theory. However, I am of the opinion that in those writings there is a theoretical heritage not denied, that it is worth re. On this occasion I shall confine myself to the scientific and ideological initiatives, on issues related to Marxism, referring to the science of linguistics (3).
It seems to me that the propositions of Stalin to move in a space defined by three points: first
, determination of the structural description of the relationship between being and consciousness - that is an expression of ontology Marxist
secondly, the criticism destructive of certain propositions school, dominant in linguistics and its School of Marr, the revival of discussion about the phenomena, ie a signal in the direction of the recovery of scientific research in controversial matters;
third of the pilloried ' bureaucratic attitude, which is affected each control system, as well as the impulse to make a turn and organizational activity party in the state.
In relation to these three aspects, I accept as justified the supposition that it was Stalin's intention, after the victory in the Great Patriotic War and after stabilization realizzatasi in the early postwar years, to drive the Soviet Union to a new phase construction of socialism. The death of Stalin he dropped by the wayside this process, which only a few had some insight.
After the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, the works of Stalin were burdened by an unspoken taboo, which contributed to the decline of the theoretical social sciences major from Soviet ideological point of view.
But let us now examine in detail these aspects of the discussion on Marxism and issues related to linguistics.
The fundamental model of relationships with the consciousness of being in the Marxist philosophy is represented by the pattern of base and superstructure.
The fundamental proposition "being determines consciousness" is explained by historical materialism in the sense that the business relationship (ie the relations of production in which man realizes his "exchange with the organic nature", the reproduction of his life as an individual and as a species) are based, which makes the formal determination superstructural forms that are appropriate - the legal system, the contents of the vision of the world, art, morality, religion, etc.. - As they reflect ideals, which in turn can objectivity in institutions and processes materials (for example, works of art or, respectively, scientific research, sports, etc.).. Through this mediation effect is also achieved a return of the superstructure on the base: in fact, the superstructure is affected by base change with it, and depending upon it at different stages in history (4).
For the foundation of a theory of ideology and tolerates this pattern is sufficient to differentiate sufficiently to be able to think the multiplicity of historical phenomena (5).
In connection with the growing importance of science as a force production had become a problem the fact that the contents and forms of consciousness - such as knowledge of natural, mathematical relationships, the conditions of logical thought - that arise in the context of superstructural activities, despite being often contaminated by ideological representations, however, remain their values, regardless of changes in the base.
The ratio of absolute truth, its ideology and in many cases should not be determined by unique borders. The ontological status of a logical principle - such as that of identity - of a mathematical regularity - for example, that the sum of the angles of a triangle - or a natural constant, must be brought into a system its a materialistic explanation for all these problems, the pattern of relationship base / superstructure is not sufficient to elaborate the philosophy of dialectical materialism.
In relation to these issues that had been accumulating, a decisive step in the theoretical development of Marxism was made by Stalin when - in relation to a paradigmatic case - he put into question the linearity of the relationship of the key base / superstructure.
In fact, the language offers at first glance the image of a historical variability and dependency on social conditions. The vocabularies exhibit changes of meaning, which are to indicate changes in work processes, technological innovations or changes social. For example, in the German sense of the word network, the fishing net is extended to interactive network of flows of information, through an earlier transition to the telephone network, or even the word Frau, from the original meaning of the domain goes to that of female or female person.
There are jargons, tied to specific environments or professions, or special language. There are ways of speaking closely related to short periods of time and will die with them. There is a learned language next to the spoken language and regional dialects. In short, we have many linguistic phenomena that we can count between superstructural phenomena and allow themselves to relate to specific developments of the relations production: this is the basic conceptions of phenomenal language of the School of Marr, which is the idea that the language should be studied as a manifestation of the superstructure.
For all of this is very significant from the theoretical point of view that, in the case of Stalin language has stressed the inadequacy of the schema base / superstructure. He states succinctly: "Each base has its superstructure, corresponding to it [...] If the base is changed and if it is put aside, then it also changes its superstructure, and so also arises a superstructure corresponding to the new basis. In this respect, the language is different in substance from the superstructure "(6). To illustrate this, Stalin used the Russian language.
"In a certain part of the vocabulary, the Russian language has changed and he did get rich in the sense of a detectable amount of new words and expressions that have arisen in relation to the advent of the new socialist production, the emergence the new state, the new socialist culture, the new social life, new moral and, finally, in connection with the development of technology and science. He changed the meaning of a series of words and expressions which have acquired a new meaning, a number of old words disappeared from the vocabulary. However, with regard to the basic pool terminology and the grammatical construction of the Russian language, which together represent the bulk of a language, not only with the provision of non-capitalist basis have also been set aside or replaced by new grammatical structures or a new heritage of terminology, but well on the other hand, remained safe and sound, or have experienced some other significant form of change "(7).
Stalin sets four characteristics that differentiate the language from the superstructure:
- constancy of the fundamental terminology and heritage of the fundamental structure grammar, which goes beyond the limits of the economic base;
- origin of language is not a base but from the entire proceed to a historical language community;
- function of a language as an instrument of understanding, beyond the distinctions of class;
- immediate connection with the production of language.
It shows that, with the language, not only we are faced with an environment that differs from the base and superstructure, but also that this sphere - in terms of logical and ontological - is assumed to consist of a specific historical formation and its development.
"The exchange of thoughts is a constant need for life and recognized as being important, because in its absence would not be possible [...] the persistence of social production. Without a language that is understandable the company and each of its members, the production would collapse and the company would cease to exist as such [...] The language belongs to those social phenomena that are operating as long as the company continues "(8).
schema base / superstructure is a structural model of social relations. According to Marx, Engels and Lenin, Stalin shows that the spatial metaphor can not be understood as a unidirectional relationship between the levels of the type of cause / effect relationship, as it includes, in reality, even a relationship of mutual influence (9).
"The superstructure is created from the base, but in no way means that you simply limits reflect the latter [...] On the contrary, once coming into the world, the superstructure becomes an active force in the sense that actively contributes to assume that the basis of its specific form and grow stronger [...] On the other hand could not be otherwise. The superstructure is produced from the base so that the servant, because the active help, because it assumes the shape and consolidate itself and contribute actively to combat the survival of the old base and its superstructure "(10).
In this simplicity, which will support the active reaction of the superstructure on the base, seems to be hiding a banality. But who knows the controversial debates about the role the superstructure, must recognize that in the propositions is enucleated the quintessential Stalinist schema, against all the lists of the discussion. Canon is what we understand by itself. But Stalin's thesis goes further.
"In short, the language can not be accepted by neither the base nor by the superstructure, nor can it be considered an intermediate category between base and superstructure, for the simple reason that this category does not exist" (11).
So neither base nor superstructure and even intermediate category - this can not mean anything except that there is a real which is not adequately focused on a metaphor that comes from architecture. Language as a medium of exchange should be viewed in analogy with the tools of production. As a condition of social production, the language as a whole is a productive force (mental), which allows you to turn science into a productive force and function as a medium of structural phenomena, as the bearer of thoughts ("reality of thought") .
Woven in every other area of \u200b\u200bthe social, language is an ideal building material relations in which they represent, and indeed is itself a material relationship, because of the universal process of constitution-real (12).
The functional description of the language, all reality, which Hegel called objective spirit, is captured as a "material relationship" and the beginning not the mechanistic materialism recon tangible asset (business objective): In relation to language is essential to show a constitutive condition of the dialectics.
Now imposes establish an indirect link with the critique of Gramsci on Bukharin. The eleventh part
Prison Notebooks dedicated to the "Wise People" is an indictment, penetrating and in many ways succeeded, against the causal mechanism, but at the same time represents a time in favor of this dialectic as a form of historical dela processuality real.
The question, centrally Gramsci asked is the following: "How did the historical movement based on the structure?" (13).
E 'in precisely this sense that Stalin escapes the life of the mechanical relationship to the language base / superstructure and submit to the rigid framework of the dynamics of historical movement (without, thereby, reduce to nothing the function of the explanatory framework, in relation to the construction building name).
Gramsci Bukharin criticism stressing the "wise people" missing "a discussion of any of the dialectic" (14).
Marxism exhibits a philosophy ", since it exceeds (and past it includes in itself the vital elements) and the idealism that the traditional materials, expressions of the old society "(15). On the contrary, Bukharin put it in continuity with the old metaphysical materialism.
seems to me that the statements of Stalin, in his paper on" Marxism in linguistics, is confined in the context of developing a philosophical conception of dialectical materialism, which has its other hubs in Leninism "statement of Hegel's Science of Logic" and Gramsci's "Introduction to Philosophy" (16).
This is sufficient, but an adequate conception of dialectic, which does not treat her as a special case of logic, but rather as a constitutive principle of a world view, according to the proper and clear understanding Gramsci, is the equivalent of a correct theoretical political action, and in this sense we must also understand the thinking of Stalin on the dialectic, the right questions of Leninism.
Despite the ideological meaning of the language problem, one might wonder whether the cheStalin put at stake the authority about a subject as peripheral to a political point of view. Besides, Stalin himself proves to have no intention to enter into the domain of linguistics, for which certainly had no powers, but rather, that Stalin was interested in certain fundamental questions of Marxism.
"I am not a scholar of linguistics and of course not I can not fully meet the companions. Instead, with regard to Marxism in linguistics and in other social sciences, are directly implicated. "(17).
With this makes clear reference to the systematic philosophy, which embraces more than one area. However, through this observation is not fully clear why delo spectacular intervention of the head of the party in a scientific discussion.
The propositions of Stalin, in fact, do not refer only to the systematic ontological, but also represent a direct criticism of the practice of scientific research in the USSR and Thus, to address issues of social concern.
To understand the intention behind the intervention in the debate language, shall also be taken the next step economic problems of socialism.
One can easily agree that the problem posed to Stalin had been agreed with him (as happens on the other hand, when it comes to interviews with personalities in positions of responsibility). The question about the adequacy of the debate - controversial - Pravda, Stalin gives an opportunity to explain himself with unquestionable clarity: "First of all, the discussion has made it quite clear that language in the organs, the Centre and in the republics, dominated by a regime that is not good neither for science nor for scientists. Even the most mild criticism of the existing state of things in Soviet linguistics, even the most timid attempt at a critique of the so-called "new learning" in linguistics, are hindered and persecuted by the leaders in the field of language environments. For a critical view of the legacy of NJ Marr, the slightest disapproval of the doctrine of NJ Marr, have lost their place in linguistics researchers responsible, or have been relegated to less important assignments. Linguists are called to responsible positions not for their competence, but on the basis of full recognition dela doctrine of NJ Marr. E 'universally recognized that no science can develop and achieve good results without a clash of opinions, without freedom of criticism (my sott. HHH). But this rule has been universally recognized blatantly ignored and trampled upon. It consists of a closed personality infallible leaders who, having made safe from any possible criticism, began to administer arbitrarily, provoking riots "(18).
cite this step was necessary to realize what was the pulse that Stalin sought to give the public life. The situations he considered anything but in order, were not specific to a particular scientific discipline, rather it was widespread in every sphere of society following the process of bureaucratization of the state and the Party. During the construction of the socialist economy, which was completed in a centralized manner and under the pressure of time, probably a bureaucratic process that was to some extent inevitable. The fact that exactly this process assume hypertrophic size was to be ascribed to the particular conditions in which the construction of socialism in the USSR took place - the problems of this certainly could not be discussed in this text, however, depends on an analysis (19).
The harshness with which Stalin expressed himself means that he understood the urgency of the problem and which you would come time to act to change the situation. Stalin made the same choice of words is to say that it was not only the clash between scientific schools. Stalin spoke of system-Araktsceev (20). Araktsceev was a man of the Russian state at the time of the reactionary Holy Alliance, which - similarly to Metternich, but in an even harder - he built a despotic military regime and the police without any hesitation. It is clear that it would be wholly disproportionate use of Araktsceev symbolically as if the question had been limited to relations between universities.
to account, with a word, almost defiant tone exacerbated the paradox, we see this: Stalin gave the signal to a process of social change that if we wanted to use the jargon journalism sponsored by the Twentieth Congress, might be called de-Stalinization - term, however, false and misleading.
intervention on personal and organizational structures established, despite the deep shock of the still weak Soviet society after the war, however, was something desirable to smooth the transition to another phase of the construction of socialism. The discussion in the scientific field, marginal in terms of political and social, could give a signal to start to prepare with care and awareness, a change in the relationship and make room for new ideas in the collective work.
I am aware that The first objection is that sources with dates could not be done anything that had real value demonstration. The major historical hypotheses have precisely this economic status. But the text on Marxism and linguistic diversity should be seen in relation to the Constitution of 1936 and thereby acquires plausibility of the hypothesis that the tensions of the period after the war, the forms imposed by the exceptional period should be abandoned and that is the beginning of a search terrain characterized by less social conflict (21). Such an interpretation allows a different explanation of the period, more than at the usual publications, which outlines everything in black or white, so with stiff opposition.
In conclusion, we have yet to establish the parallel between this paper and that, two years later, on the economic problems of the USSR. Of course, I do not care to make a comparison with the political-economic content, it would be an investigation of its own. However, there are signs that are clearly recognizable by a new style in public controversy and in the maturation of the reviews. The theme in the foreground is the drafting of a manual of political economy: what is expressed in the theses of the paper are the views and socio-economic strategies and policies. But now the problem is no longer break the stagnant institutional forms stiff to earn the prize of criticism (22). Rather, now it comes to formulating a project, theoretically more correct and clear conceptually, the practice of building socialism.
The polemical tone, which in the written language sometimes peeps, totally lacking in dealing with the economy. On the other hand Stalin expressly says: "Some comrades in the course of discussion, with too much zeal for critical analysis of the rough draft of the book and the authors blame for their failures and their mistakes, this would put the failure of the project. Of course it is true that there are mistakes and shortcomings in the manual - but that happens to every big opera "(23): Only answering
Jaroscenko, Stalin is shown ironic and violent, accusing hard to have revived some errors buchariniani. (Who, with an eye to the next historical development, Stalin reads this, can see the rejection of an advance Jaroscenko critical to Khrushchev). The discovery of the contradictions between productive forces and relations of production in socialism also means opening up to the cancellation of the differences - and the discussion there is also an open criticism of Stalin. But these states expressly: "I think for the correction of the draft manual, it was necessary to set up a committee not numerically large, which were part of not only the author of the manual and its supporters, in order to have they secure the majority in the discussions, but their opponents who were fierce critics of the project "(24).
A company led by knowledge that allows scientific socialism, does not come at once. It assumes that men constantly broaden and deepen their cultural horizons, in order to have general interests and take history into their hands. This would, yes, genuine democracy and effective for the first time. In this respect we mention again Stalin.
"It 's necessary to reach a growth of cultrurale society capable of ensuring a multilateral development of his ability will physical and mental growth through which members of society have the opportunity to get an education that can transform them into active coattori social development [...] You might think that you can not reach a similar cultural growth of the members of society without serious changes in the current work status. For this purpose it is first necessary to reduce the workday to six hours, and then to five. This is necessary to give every member of society enough free time to build a multilateral culture. For this purpose it is also necessary to introduce, as compulsory, universal education, a polytechnic, so that every member of society actually has the possibility to freely choose a job and that not a single moment of his life is dedicated to work but it is. Furthermore, it is necessary, too, profoundly improve the system of housing and increase by at least double, if not more, wages of workers and employees: The goal is to increase the ability to purchase goods needed by the masses through a lower prices. These are the basic conditions to make the transition to communism "(25).
with an eye to a developed socialist society, which can be engendered by Communism, ending the theoretical work of Stalin. We must not discharge this legacy exactly where we want to honor those who died fighting for this goal.
Hans Heinz Holz
Notes (1) On this, cf. notations programmatic A. Hüllinghorst in TOPOS 22 "Lenin" [forthcoming].
(2) VK Gossweiler, Die Chronik oder Die-Taubenfuss Chruschtschowiade, Monaco 2002.
(3) Josef W. Stalin, Werke, vol. XV, Dortmund 1979: "Marxism and the problems of language," pp. 163ss. - "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", pp. 292 ff .. For international echoes of these writings, it is important to note the immediate and spontaneous positive reaction of the linguists, with regard to Germany, should be highlighted the positive response of Werner Krauss, a distinguished scholar of Roman civilization, whose jurisdiction of substance, clarity, philosophical and political sensitivity, some are out of the question. See Werner Krauss, Das wissenschaftliche Werk, Berlin 1984. See also HHHolz, Werner Krauss' sprachphilosophische Standortbestimmung in Hermann Hofer, Thilo Karger, Christa Riehn (editors), Werner Krauss, Tübingen and Basel 2003, p. 143 ff.
(4) The relationship between base and superstructure, cf. Kuusinen et alii, basic principles of Marxism, Rome, 1969 Vol. 2, pp. 18ss.; A. Sceptulin, Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Moscow 1977, pp. 271 ff.; Friedrich Tomberg, Basis und Uberbau, Darmstadt and Neuwied 1974, Institute for Social Science at the CC of the SED, Grundlagen des historischen Materialismus, Berlin 1976; Authors Various Marxistisch-leninistische Philosophie, Berlin and Frankfurt 1979, pp. 446 ff.
(5) On the subject of a theory of ideology, cf. A. Mazzone, issues of ideology theory, Messina 1981, various authors, Erkenntnis und Wahrheit, Berlin 1983; TOPOS 17, "Ideologies", Naples 2001.
(6) Stalins Werke, Band 15: 165.
(7) Op. p. 165s.
(8) Op cit. p. 186.
(9) See, for example, nel'ambito of bourgeois, the model levels which appear in Der Aufbau der realen Welt, Berlin 1940 by N. Hartman, but also by the same author Neue Wege der Ontologie, Stuttgart 1947.
(10) Stalin op. cit. p. 166.
(11) Stalin op. cit. p. 203.
(12) HH Holz, Language and World, Frankfurt 1953 pp. 30SS.
(13) A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Torino 1977 p.1422.
(14) Gramsci, op. cit., p. 1424.
(15) Gramsci, op. cit., p.
1425 (16) To see Lenin. HH Holz, Einheit und Widerspruch, vol. 3, Stuttgart 1997, pp. 361 ff. For Stalin, cf. HH Holz, "Stalin als des Theoretiker Leninismus" in Streitbarer Materialismus 22 May 1998, pp. 21 ff.
(17) Stalin, op. cit., p. 164.
(18) Stalin, op. cit., p. 197.
(19) On this cf. HH Holz, Loss, and future of socialism, Milano 1994.
(20) Stalin, op. cit., p.198.
(21) The Soviet Constitution 1936, cf. my contribution to the Conference of the Cultural Marche (May 31, 2001).
(22) In concluding the debate, Stalin softened criticism of Marr and gave proof of his great respect for the researcher (see Stalin, op. Cit. P. 209). Stalin also attributed responsibility for the stagnation of the regime-Araktsceev nominated for the second time (see Stalin, op. Cit. P. 210).
(23) Stalin, op. cit., p. 337.
(24) Stalin, op. cit., p. 338.
(25) Stalin, op. cit., p. 359.
0 comments:
Post a Comment