heiss93
13th September 2009, 05:05
Dear Maoist-Third Worldist.. On Stalin and MIM on language
On Stalin and MIM on language
“Dear Maoist-Third Worldist,
Does MSH consider MIM language policy, which is continued by MSH, to be compatible with Stalin’s Problems of Linguistics in which he states language is class neutral and that there is no proletarian language?”
*
Comrade Serve the People answers for MSH:
Comrade, you are equivocating on the term “language.” In his article Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, Comrade Stalin uses the term in the sense of a linguistic system common to at least one people: Dutch, Vietnamese, and Nahuatl are three languages. When MIM established its “language policy,” it used the term to refer to a handful of constructions and forms that the party required or preferred for its official purposes: “america” and “bio-womyn” were promoted under MIM’s language policy. These two senses of the word “language” are distinct, and you have unfortunately confused them. We recommend that you reread Comrade Stalin’s article.
The section to which you allude is Comrade Stalin’s answer to the question “Is it true that language always was and is class language, that there is no such thing as language which is the single and common language of a society, a non-class language common to the whole people?” Comrade Stalin answered in the negative. He pointed out that language antedates class society: people in primitive-communist societies did speak, but their languages could not be called “class languages,” because they didn’t have classes. Moreover, in class society, a language is common to all classes in the nation: for example, the Russian bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasantry, and lumpenproletariat all spoke the same language (Russian). There is no such thing as “a bourgeois language” or “a proletarian language.” English is spoken as a native language primarily in several thoroughly bourgeoisified countries of the First World (the “United” KKKingdom, Ireland, the united $nakes, Kanada, aU$tralia, New $tealand, etc.), and certainly its spread throughout the world is an imperialist phenomenon; but it is also the first language of most people in Third World countries such as Jamaica and Belize, and it is widely used as a second language by proletarians and semi-proletarians in other parts of the Third World. Furthermore, it would be both unnecessary and undesirable–even ultra-left–to supplant the national languages for “revolutionary” purposes. Comrade Stalin pointed to the example of Russian: in about a century after Pushkin’s death, Russia went from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, yet the language remained essentially the same. The Russian language was not “feudal” in one era, “bourgeois” in another, and “proletarian” in a third; it was simply the language that the people had customarily used and continued to use.
But that does not mean that language is independent of class. Some accents, words, grammatical constructions, and manners of speaking are associated with one class or another. Comrade Stalin’s article addresses this issue:
“It has been said above that language, as a means of intercourse between the people of a society, serves all classes of society equally, and in this respect displays what may be called an indifference to classes. But people, the various social groups, the classes, are far from being indifferent to language. They strive to utilize the language in their own interests, to impose their own special lingo, their own special terms, their own special expressions upon it. The upper strata of the propertied classes, who have divorced themselves from and detest the people–the aristocratic nobility, the upper strata of the bourgeoisie–particularly distinguish themselves in this respect. ‘Class’ dialects, jargons, high-society ‘languages’ are created. These dialects and jargons are often incorrectly referred to in literature as languages–the ‘aristocratic language’ or the ‘bourgeois language’ in contradistinction to the ‘proletarian language’ or the ‘peasant language.’”
It is in this light that some aspects of MIM’s language policy can be correctly characterized as proletarian: it introduced some proletarian terms and linguistic forms into a language that, like all others, is common to all of its speakers, irrespective of class.
A language develops slowly, not suddenly, although changes do accumulate over time to transform it qualitatively. Consider the history of English. Text written in 1800, just two hundred years ago, is perfectly legible to us today and indeed is considered by both linguists and ordinary English speakers to be in the same language (Modern English), despite some vocabulary, grammar, idioms, and spellings that may seem quaint or unfamiliar to us; we would also have no trouble speaking with people from that time. Go back two hundred more years, to Shakespeare’s time, and the language is Early Modern English–still fairly easy for us to read, though the differences in vocabulary, usage, and grammar are great enough that the uninitiated today may not fully understand writing from that period without assistance, and the spoken language would present even greater obstacles. Two hundred years further back, in the time of Chaucer, the language is Late Middle English–quite recognizable, but hard to read without extensive footnotes or even formal study. Two hundred more years back, around 1200, Early Middle English is scarcely recognizable as English, and a modern reader can at best guess at an occasional short phrase. Two hundred years earlier, the language–called Old English or Anglo-Saxon–is so far removed in every respect that we cannot recognize it as English in either speech or writing, and understanding it requires formal study on a par with that of a foreign language. Three hundred years earlier, the language had just begun to be written, and scarcely 250 years before that it was spoken not in Britain but on the European mainland.
Changes in language have been fairly minor even over a period of centuries, yet their cumulative effect over longer periods is dramatic. It cannot be otherwise. Although the economic base of society can be transformed rather quickly, as socialism supplanted capitalism and feudalism in several countries, the language of a nation cannot be: there’s no realistic way to get everyone in an entire large nation to abandon the national language in favor of a new one overnight. Nor is there even a need to replace the national language: it is as suitable for proletarian as for bourgeois discourse.
What is possible, and what happens in practice, is a minor change in vocabulary and perhaps a few aspects of the language. The glorious October Revolution ushered in some new vocabulary to support the proletarian ideology of the new socialist society. In addition, words for obsolete social institutions (such as royalty) were gradually abandoned or relegated to the historical domain. A spelling reform also simplified writing and supported the unprecedented drive for universal literacy (essentially completed by the late 1930s). But note that these changes were minor: they did not fundamentally alter the language.
In this vein, MIM adopted a “language policy” that sought not to transform English completely (in its vocabulary, grammar, semantics, etc.) but just to introduce some proletarian terms and linguistic forms for purposes such as agitation, propaganda, and clarity of analysis; it also discouraged or even forbade the use of some forms that served the interests of the class enemy. This policy could easily be summarized on a single sheet of paper, if not on an index card. The most notable of MIM’s reforms were some politically motivated spellings (such as “Amerik(kk)a,” “U.$.,” “womyn,” “koncentration kamp”), some revolutionary-nationalist place names (”northern Korea,” “Aztlán”), some terms popularized by our comrades the Black Panthers (”pig,” “vamp on”) and other revolutionaries (”Azania,” “Boricua,” “the Zionist entity”), and a few new categories to match MIM’s gender line (”bio-man,” “gender bureaucrat”).
Is it correct to speak of MIM’s language policy as proletarian? Advancing the interests of the international proletariat was undeniably MIM’s motivation. The extent to which particular aspects of MIM’s language policy, or the policy as a whole, met that worthy goal is subject to debate, and we ourselves have rejected some parts of the policy as incorrect if not downright revisionist. Whatever its failures, MIM aimed to revolutionize language in the interest of the proletariat, not by fundamentally transforming English into a “proletarian language” (for no such thing exists) but by introducing a number of rhetorical devices that reflected and reinforced MIM’s political line.
Coming as it did from the glorious proletarian tradition of MIM Thought, IRTR continued and developed MIM’s language policy. MSH, a successor of IRTR, also inherited this language policy but has since modified it to match our improved political line. The most notable change is our abandonment of parts of MIM’s gender line, for reasons that we have articulated elsewhere. We no longer write “womyn” or “persyn” or use terms such as “bio-wimmin,” as we feel that these terms reflect a well-intended but incorrect line. Also, we tend to eschew the term “Aztlán” in favor of “occupied northern Mexico” and other expressions that clarify our view of Mexico as a nation divided by occupiers, much like Korea or Ireland. Our rather informal language policy, which allows our comrades a fair degree of discretion, does favor the use of language, and all other cultural institutions, in a manner that aggressively serves the interests of the international proletariat. In that sense, it is a proletarian revolutionary language policy.
Another proletarian aspect of MIM’s language policy and ours is their promotion of the use of languages other than Eng£ish. With the help of many comrades, we have published much material in Spanish, French, Czech, Polish, Greek, Tagalog, Chinese, and other languages. With the exception of those that have had state power (and vastly greater resources than we enjoy), hardly any other organization calling itself communist has been so attentive to its international responsibilities.
On Stalin and MIM on language
“Dear Maoist-Third Worldist,
Does MSH consider MIM language policy, which is continued by MSH, to be compatible with Stalin’s Problems of Linguistics in which he states language is class neutral and that there is no proletarian language?”
*
Comrade Serve the People answers for MSH:
Comrade, you are equivocating on the term “language.” In his article Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, Comrade Stalin uses the term in the sense of a linguistic system common to at least one people: Dutch, Vietnamese, and Nahuatl are three languages. When MIM established its “language policy,” it used the term to refer to a handful of constructions and forms that the party required or preferred for its official purposes: “america” and “bio-womyn” were promoted under MIM’s language policy. These two senses of the word “language” are distinct, and you have unfortunately confused them. We recommend that you reread Comrade Stalin’s article.
The section to which you allude is Comrade Stalin’s answer to the question “Is it true that language always was and is class language, that there is no such thing as language which is the single and common language of a society, a non-class language common to the whole people?” Comrade Stalin answered in the negative. He pointed out that language antedates class society: people in primitive-communist societies did speak, but their languages could not be called “class languages,” because they didn’t have classes. Moreover, in class society, a language is common to all classes in the nation: for example, the Russian bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasantry, and lumpenproletariat all spoke the same language (Russian). There is no such thing as “a bourgeois language” or “a proletarian language.” English is spoken as a native language primarily in several thoroughly bourgeoisified countries of the First World (the “United” KKKingdom, Ireland, the united $nakes, Kanada, aU$tralia, New $tealand, etc.), and certainly its spread throughout the world is an imperialist phenomenon; but it is also the first language of most people in Third World countries such as Jamaica and Belize, and it is widely used as a second language by proletarians and semi-proletarians in other parts of the Third World. Furthermore, it would be both unnecessary and undesirable–even ultra-left–to supplant the national languages for “revolutionary” purposes. Comrade Stalin pointed to the example of Russian: in about a century after Pushkin’s death, Russia went from feudalism to capitalism to socialism, yet the language remained essentially the same. The Russian language was not “feudal” in one era, “bourgeois” in another, and “proletarian” in a third; it was simply the language that the people had customarily used and continued to use.
But that does not mean that language is independent of class. Some accents, words, grammatical constructions, and manners of speaking are associated with one class or another. Comrade Stalin’s article addresses this issue:
“It has been said above that language, as a means of intercourse between the people of a society, serves all classes of society equally, and in this respect displays what may be called an indifference to classes. But people, the various social groups, the classes, are far from being indifferent to language. They strive to utilize the language in their own interests, to impose their own special lingo, their own special terms, their own special expressions upon it. The upper strata of the propertied classes, who have divorced themselves from and detest the people–the aristocratic nobility, the upper strata of the bourgeoisie–particularly distinguish themselves in this respect. ‘Class’ dialects, jargons, high-society ‘languages’ are created. These dialects and jargons are often incorrectly referred to in literature as languages–the ‘aristocratic language’ or the ‘bourgeois language’ in contradistinction to the ‘proletarian language’ or the ‘peasant language.’”
It is in this light that some aspects of MIM’s language policy can be correctly characterized as proletarian: it introduced some proletarian terms and linguistic forms into a language that, like all others, is common to all of its speakers, irrespective of class.
A language develops slowly, not suddenly, although changes do accumulate over time to transform it qualitatively. Consider the history of English. Text written in 1800, just two hundred years ago, is perfectly legible to us today and indeed is considered by both linguists and ordinary English speakers to be in the same language (Modern English), despite some vocabulary, grammar, idioms, and spellings that may seem quaint or unfamiliar to us; we would also have no trouble speaking with people from that time. Go back two hundred more years, to Shakespeare’s time, and the language is Early Modern English–still fairly easy for us to read, though the differences in vocabulary, usage, and grammar are great enough that the uninitiated today may not fully understand writing from that period without assistance, and the spoken language would present even greater obstacles. Two hundred years further back, in the time of Chaucer, the language is Late Middle English–quite recognizable, but hard to read without extensive footnotes or even formal study. Two hundred more years back, around 1200, Early Middle English is scarcely recognizable as English, and a modern reader can at best guess at an occasional short phrase. Two hundred years earlier, the language–called Old English or Anglo-Saxon–is so far removed in every respect that we cannot recognize it as English in either speech or writing, and understanding it requires formal study on a par with that of a foreign language. Three hundred years earlier, the language had just begun to be written, and scarcely 250 years before that it was spoken not in Britain but on the European mainland.
Changes in language have been fairly minor even over a period of centuries, yet their cumulative effect over longer periods is dramatic. It cannot be otherwise. Although the economic base of society can be transformed rather quickly, as socialism supplanted capitalism and feudalism in several countries, the language of a nation cannot be: there’s no realistic way to get everyone in an entire large nation to abandon the national language in favor of a new one overnight. Nor is there even a need to replace the national language: it is as suitable for proletarian as for bourgeois discourse.
What is possible, and what happens in practice, is a minor change in vocabulary and perhaps a few aspects of the language. The glorious October Revolution ushered in some new vocabulary to support the proletarian ideology of the new socialist society. In addition, words for obsolete social institutions (such as royalty) were gradually abandoned or relegated to the historical domain. A spelling reform also simplified writing and supported the unprecedented drive for universal literacy (essentially completed by the late 1930s). But note that these changes were minor: they did not fundamentally alter the language.
In this vein, MIM adopted a “language policy” that sought not to transform English completely (in its vocabulary, grammar, semantics, etc.) but just to introduce some proletarian terms and linguistic forms for purposes such as agitation, propaganda, and clarity of analysis; it also discouraged or even forbade the use of some forms that served the interests of the class enemy. This policy could easily be summarized on a single sheet of paper, if not on an index card. The most notable of MIM’s reforms were some politically motivated spellings (such as “Amerik(kk)a,” “U.$.,” “womyn,” “koncentration kamp”), some revolutionary-nationalist place names (”northern Korea,” “Aztlán”), some terms popularized by our comrades the Black Panthers (”pig,” “vamp on”) and other revolutionaries (”Azania,” “Boricua,” “the Zionist entity”), and a few new categories to match MIM’s gender line (”bio-man,” “gender bureaucrat”).
Is it correct to speak of MIM’s language policy as proletarian? Advancing the interests of the international proletariat was undeniably MIM’s motivation. The extent to which particular aspects of MIM’s language policy, or the policy as a whole, met that worthy goal is subject to debate, and we ourselves have rejected some parts of the policy as incorrect if not downright revisionist. Whatever its failures, MIM aimed to revolutionize language in the interest of the proletariat, not by fundamentally transforming English into a “proletarian language” (for no such thing exists) but by introducing a number of rhetorical devices that reflected and reinforced MIM’s political line.
Coming as it did from the glorious proletarian tradition of MIM Thought, IRTR continued and developed MIM’s language policy. MSH, a successor of IRTR, also inherited this language policy but has since modified it to match our improved political line. The most notable change is our abandonment of parts of MIM’s gender line, for reasons that we have articulated elsewhere. We no longer write “womyn” or “persyn” or use terms such as “bio-wimmin,” as we feel that these terms reflect a well-intended but incorrect line. Also, we tend to eschew the term “Aztlán” in favor of “occupied northern Mexico” and other expressions that clarify our view of Mexico as a nation divided by occupiers, much like Korea or Ireland. Our rather informal language policy, which allows our comrades a fair degree of discretion, does favor the use of language, and all other cultural institutions, in a manner that aggressively serves the interests of the international proletariat. In that sense, it is a proletarian revolutionary language policy.
Another proletarian aspect of MIM’s language policy and ours is their promotion of the use of languages other than Eng£ish. With the help of many comrades, we have published much material in Spanish, French, Czech, Polish, Greek, Tagalog, Chinese, and other languages. With the exception of those that have had state power (and vastly greater resources than we enjoy), hardly any other organization calling itself communist has been so attentive to its international responsibilities.