The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union • Chapter 8

This year brought a sensation. The instrument of the Russification of all non‑Russian languages, Marr's new Marxist-Leninist teaching on language was revoked by Stalin himself, apparently as a new "cooky" for the non‑Russian nationalities.

Let us survey this important change in the Russian Communist policy with respect to linguistics and the non‑Russian languages, which, of course, is a new proof that the nationality problem in the Soviet Union is still a living issue.

1. The Linguistic Discussion in the Soviet Union

The Soviet Academy of Sciences observed the fifteenth anniversary of Marr's death in 1949 with a special scientific session devoted to his work. All the Communist elite of linguists attempted to outdo one another in glorifying Marr's works. He was said to have created "the new science of language, based on Marxist-Leninist methodology," and his linguistic theory is the only theory for all the particular linguistic disciplines; it is the only scientific linguistics; it is the new revolutionary science of language. No other Marxist linguistics exists or can exist. every shadow of a critical attitude was attacked and compared, in essence, with similar attempts of Weismannists and Morganists to discredit and discard the materialist research of Michurin and Lysenko. Especially the U. S. A. was attacked. Linguistics in capitalist countries is used by the imperialist, antidemocratic camp, headed by the U. S. A., in its struggle against "the camp of progress, democracy and peace headed by the Soviet Union," charged Zhdanov himself. Hitler's fascism used the Indo-European linguistics for racial superiority; Anglo-American imperialism uses the contemporary school of de Saussure for the "reactionary" projects for establishing a "United States of Europe, ""Marshall Plan," etc. On April, 1950, there was published in Voprosy filosofii, No. 3, 1949, an extensive report by A. C. Spirkin about this exhibition of the new Soviet scholarship in the field of linguistics.

On May 9, 1950, the official paper, Pravda, unexpectedly brought an article of Prof. Arn. Chikobava entitled "On Certain Problems of Soviet Linguistics," with an editor's note saying that the editor was opening a discussion⁠1 and devoting two pages to it weekly. The Soviet linguists p220 were stunned by Chikobava's devastating criticism of Marr. Is this a "provocation" (challenge) of the Communist Party? — this was the suspicion of every scholar. Every scholar who certainly was officially "advised" by the Communist Party to take part in the discussion, tried immediately to defend Marr and his linguistic theory. Thus Academician I. Meshchaninov, on May 16, basically defended Marr, accused Chikobava, and demanded a creative development of Marr's theory. On May 23, Prof. N. Chemodanov also defended Marr and criticized Chikobava; on the same day B. Serebrennikov supported Chikobava, but an Orientalist, Prof. G. Sanshyeev, bitterly attacked Chikobava. On June 20 a fantastic event occurred: Stalin himself published an article: in Pravda, "On Marxism in Linguistics." After the infallible genius of all peoples, ages and sciences and liberal arts had spoken and outlined the new party line the whole discussion was practically closed and all the subsequent articles were only a constant sycophantic "Hallelujah, Stalin" in every shade of tone.

For anyone acquainted with life in the Soviet Union, with the conduct of research, teaching, and press — the background of the whole discussion is clear. Chikobava, a dit relative of the chief of the M. V. D., Beria, had already criticized Marr and through Beria had warned Stalin against the political consequences of Marr's theories. Of course the whole discussion, which some gullible American linguists will regard as spontaneous, was systematically prearranged by the Communist Party in its chief stages — with the statement of Stalin for a climax, surely drafted by the same Chikobava and only "edited" by Stalin himself.

a) The situation in Soviet linguistics is a complete stagnation. It has reached a state in which "it is becoming impossible to do positive work on the immediate tasks of our motherland's linguistic development." Why? Because:

b) Marr was "unable to attain a profound understanding of the essence of Marxism-Leninism," he was "unable to master the method of dialectical materialism and to apply it to linguistics." Marr supplanted Marxism-Leninism with his own theories. Therefore Marr committed "serious errors and omissions." Which? Here they are:

c) Marr's theory that language is a superstructure of the economic basis is false and does not solve the question of the nature of language. Only in the vocabulary are there traces of economic eras, but the structure of a word and sentence, the declension of nouns, conjugation of verbs, or the sound shifts do not coincide with or directly reflect the last three of all five socioeconomic periods. Marr's explanation is neither Marxist nor scientific.

d) Marr's teaching "on the class nature of language is entirely incompatible with Marxism." There were not and could not have been any classes at the time when the human collective emerged from the animal world. There were no classes even under the primitive-communal system.

The existence of nonclass language cannot be disputed because Stalin has stated in his definition of a nation, "a common language is one of p221 the characteristic features of a nation." Marr's concept of the "class-language" is "self-contradictory and scientifically inconsistent." Nations have only national languages which are common for all classes of these nations.

e) Chikobava ironically states that there is no need to dwell on Marr's dubious theses about the gesture language as the original languages. Marr's teaching on the origin and initial function of language (he does not acknowledge the initial function of language) is in sharp contradiction to the theoretical formulation of the question by the classics of Marxism, because Marx and Engels wrote, "Language originates only from demand, from persistent need to come up with others."

f) Chikobava rejects also Marr's basic interconnected theories about (1) the singleness (unilinearity) of the glottogonic process, (2) the development of languages by stages and the classification of languages according to these stages, and (3) also Marr's peculiar theory of the four original words: Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh on which is based Marr's method of element analysis. All these theories were usually proclaimed the basic achievement of Marr and hailed as "the progressive and revolutionary doctrines which completely upset the racist principle of bourgeois linguistics." Is this so? asked Chikobava. What is the doctrine of stages based on? What does it affirm? Where does it lead?

Chikobava examines Marr's theory about the emerging of the Indo-European languages which in his opinion were called forth by an upheaval connected with the discovery of metals and their widespread use in economy. In this statement Chikobava finds two contradictions. First: as a matter of fact in 2000 B.C., when nobody heard of I. E. languages in the Mediterranean area, the Japhetic peoples were creators of metallurgy, as is generally known and emphasized by Marr himself. Therefore, the Japhetic languages should in the first place reach themselves the"quaternary stage of development," but they remained on the third and the Indo-European made the jump. Second: according to Marr, the Japhetic languages became transformed into the Indo-European — but nevertheless they continue to exist, they "got stuck" in that stage in which they were before their transformation into Indo-European. Either one or the other, argues Chikobava, either the Japhetic languages became transformed into I. E. and, if so, they cannot be at a previous stage of development, or they "got stuck" at an earlier stage, and consequently one cannot talk of transformation. In the world of living beings parent and offspring can exist side by side, but not in language, there can be no coexistence of the newly developed language and of the one through whose metamorphosis the new language arose. Vulgar Latin does not coexist with Italian, which originated from it, nor with French, Roumanian, Spanish, or Portuguese.

Chikobava finally attacks these theories from all sides, showing their complete lack of simple common sense and elementary logic: (1) The whole theory of the single glottogonic process and the classification of language by stages are "devoid of historicity" and thus necessarily "metaphysical and unscientific." It is nonsense to include all languages p222 in a single glottogonic process and to deny them the chance of development. (2) The stage theory affirms the exclusive superiority of the Indo-European and Semitic languages; all the others froze at more or less early, archaic levels. Denying them the capacity of development, Marr objectively "helps racism." (3) Marr deprived languages of their individuality by reducing the whole wealth of human speech forms to Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh. Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh, which is an unproven theorem proclaimed an axiom. The theory which uses the four-element analysis as the technique in linguistic research is not only not a Marxist-Leninist theory of language, it cannot even become one. (4) Marr's concept of "languages related through contact" is also nonsensical, as the contact of the Basque, with the ancient Latin and modern Romance language for at least 2000 years did not make Basque related to Spanish or French. (5) Finally Chikobava states: "To declare that element analysis and the stage theory are attainments of Soviet linguistics means to discredit the materialist science of language."

g) In his positive points Chikobava rehabilitates the genealogic classification of languages used by Western linguists, as unrelated to division of races, much less to racism. Chikobava makes a new "Russian" discovery:

"The existence of related languages having a common origin and common initial language material, and joined in their respective families of languages, as well as the birth of these languages during the process of differentiation of a common language material, is an irrefutable fact. . . .

"The same common origin unites groups of related languages inside one or another linguistic family For example, the Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Iranian, and others within the Indo-European family; the karvelian languages within the Ibero-Caucasian ones; the Finnish within the Finnish-Ugrian, etc., Slavic, Germanic, Romance and other similar groups of languages are genealogical concepts. These concepts are legitimate as the concept of a linguistic group."

With a final heavy artillery barrage of Chikobava against the "idealist" and the "bourgeois schools" of Vossier, Meillet, de Saussure, to cover the retreat — the Western European, "bourgeois" comparative historical linguistics are rediscovered by Chikobava. "Whatever has been achieved of a positive, factually reliable nature in the historical study of Indo-European, Semitic, Ibero-Caucasian, Uralo-Altaic languages is due to the use of the techniques of such comparative historical analysis." And as a final blow to Marr: "Comparative historical analysis is used by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and State."

b) According to Chikobava the only matter of principle on which Marr's views are in accord with the theses of Marxism-Leninism is Marr's theory on the single common languages for future mankind. However, Chikobava stresses the fact that Marr's "understanding of the question is incorrect, non‑Marxist" in this instance as well. Why? Because Marr proposes to apply "artificial means, scientifically worked p223 out, in order to accelerate this process." This statement is very important for us, since here a Communist unveils the very essence of all the "reforms" forced by the Russian Communist Party on all non‑Russian languages in the Soviet Union. Chikobava formulates his point of view about this question: Marxists understand this matter differently. They hold that the process of withering away of national languages and the formation of a single common world language will take place gradually without any "artificial means" invoked to "accelerate" this process; "the application of such artificial means would mean the use of coercion against nations, and this mmximi cannot permit." (That is a deliberate lie of Chikobava, since for nearly two decades all the "reforms in the non‑Russian languages were pure "coercion.") With long quotations from Stalin, Chikobava concludes — after the practical application of Marr's theory to all non‑Russian nationalities for a quarter of a century by the Russian Communist Party — that Comrade Stalin's teaching on the Socialist nations and the prospect for their "development" is a harsh rebuff to all advocates of "artificial means of accelerating the process of transition to a single common language." Consequently, "it is clear that Academician Marr's viewpoint in advocating artificial means . . . cannot be considered Marxist-Leninist." After a quarter of a century of enforced Russification of all the non‑Russian languages by the Russian Communist Party with full approval of Stalin, the Communist Party discovers the "artificial means," and makes Marr the scapegoat!

Against Chikobava and in defense of Marr some "small fry" immediately took part in the discussion. They thought this was an opportunity to play the same "heroic roles" as the defenders of Lysenko during the "biological discussion" a year before with all the promotions included. . . . Even Prof. Meshchaninov, who had once the courage to state that the four-element analysis applied to modern speech "yields nothing," was very cautious and defended the other tenets of Marr; likewise Prof. Chemodanov. These "voices" had only to establish the background for the appearance of Stalin himself on the stage. Why? Surely the dictator of the Russian Communist Party understood after the experience in the "biological discussion," there would appear only pathetic "defenses" of Marr and the "approved party line," if he himself personally did not publicly revoke Marr's theory, which by his own order was in force as the "Marxist-Leninist" teaching on language. Surely, the younger linguists, members of the party, ordered to participate in the linguistic discussion were not such fools as to risk an answer and they directly asked for advice from the head of the Communist Church, infallible in Marxism-Leninism, Stalin. And that is the second reason why Stalin could not remain silent. Thus on June 20 his article appeared in Pravda, "On Marxism in Linguistics." It begins: "A group of youthful comrades has suggested to me that I express my opinion in the press on linguistic problems, particularly where Marxism in linguistics is concerned. I am not a linguist and, of course, I cannot fully satisfy the comrades. As for Marxism in linguistics as well as other social sciences, I am directly concerned with this. I have therefore consented to reply to a number of questions asked by the comrades."

Answer: "No, it is not true . . . language differs radically from superstructure . . . language is generated not by one base or another . . . but by the entire historic development of society and the history of the bases over the centuries . . . it is created not to meet the needs of one class but of the whole society, of all classes in society . . . strictly speaking . . . language can serve equally both the old dying order and the new emerging one, both the old base and the new, both exploiters and the exploited. . . .

"Language exists, it is created, to serve society as a whole in the capacity of a means of communication for people . . . regardless of their class or position. Language, while differing fundamentally from the superstructure, is not, however, different from tools of production, machinery, say, which can serve both capitalism and socialism equally. . . .

"Language is the product of a great many epochs . . . it lives incomparably longer than any base and any superstructure . . . this is widely the birth and elimination not only of the base and its superstructures, does not lead historically to the birth of a new language with a new vocabulary and a new grammar. More than 100 years have elapsed since Pushkin's death. Within this period feudalism and capitalism were eliminated in Russia and a third, socialist order arose . . . two bases were eliminated together with their superstructures and a new, socialist base came into being together with a new superstructure. However . . . the Russian language . . . did not experience any clear break and present day Russian differs little in structure from Pushkin's language. What did change? The Russian vocabulary was . . . augmented . . . obsolete words disappeared . . . many words changed their meanings . . . as for the structure and grammar of Pushkin's language as well as its basic lexical fund, in all fundamentals it remained the basis of the Russian language today."

Stalin ridicules Marr's idea even asking: Of what benefit to the revolution would such an upheaval number in language (the revolutionary change of the language according to the new Socialist base)? Summing up, Stalin says: (a) a Marxist cannot regard language as a superstructure over a base, (b) to confuse language with superstructure is to commit a grave error.

2) The second question is: "Is it true that language has always been and remains of a class nature; that a single, nonclass language common to a whole society and a whole people does not exist?"

Stalin's answer: "No, it is not true. It is easy to see there can be no question of a class language in a society without classes. The primitive clan society did not have classes and hence there could not have been a class language. There language was general, there was a single language for the whole collective people. As for the subsequent developments from clan languages to tribal, from tribal languages to the languages of peoples and from the languages of peoples to national languages p225 — everywhere, at every stage of development language, as a means of communication for people in society, was common and single for the society, serving the members of society regardless of social position. . . . History shows that national languages are not class languages but are common to the whole people, common to the members of nations and one and the same after the nation . . . as a means of communication among people in a society a language serves equally all classes in society and in this respect is . . . indifferent to classes. But people, particularly social groups and classes, are anything but indifferent to language . . . they try to use language for their own interest, to impose their own special vocabulary, terminology, their own special expressions, upon it. . . . 'Class'-dialects, jargons and salon 'languages' developed . . . can these dialects and jargons be considered languages? Absolutely not . . . because these dialects and jargons do not have their own grammar and basic lexical fund . . . they borrow them from the national language . . . dialects and jargons are ramifications of the common national language of the people. . . . Marx speaks of the 'concentration of dialects into a single national language resulting from economic and political concentration.' "

Marx, consequently, admitted the need for a single national language as the superior form to which dialects, as lower forms, were subordinate. Marxism holds that a common language is one of the most important characteristics of a nation, well known that there are class contradictions within a nation. Do the afore-mentioned comrade recognize this Marxist thesis? asks Stalin threateningly.

"Who regard the contradictory nature of the interest of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, their violent class warfare, as the disintegration of society and rupture of all ties among the inimical classes . . . they maintain that since society has fallen apart and there is no longer a single society but only classes, a single language for society, a national language, is also superfluous. . . . There were once Marxists among us who maintained that the railroads which remained in our country after the October upheaval were bourgeois, that we Marxists ought not to use them, that they should be torn‑up and new proletarian railroads built. . . ."

Ironically Stalin remarks and raises against them the charge that they were wandering in the footsteps of the Jewish Bund before the Revolution, which once rejected Lenin's national policy.

"A national language can serve both bourgeois and socialist culture . . . the mistake of our comrades made here is that they fail to see the difference between culture and language and do not understand that the content of culture changes with each new period in society's development while language remains basically the same throughout several periods, serving equally both the new culture and the old. . . .

"Hence: (a) language as a means of communication has always been and remains one and the same for society and common to its members, p226 (b) the existence of dialects and jargons does not refute but confirms the existence of a language common to the whole people of which they are ramifications and to which they are subordinate; (c) the formula of the 'class-nature' of languages is an erroneous, un‑Marxist formula."

3) The third question which, characteristically, the young comrades did not address to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, but to Stalin, is: "What are the characteristic features of a language?"

"Language is one of those social phenomena which operate all during society's existence. It is born and develops with the birth and development of society. . . . [Similar revelations and truisms Stalin presents on vocabulary, grammar (grammatical structure), but he uses this opportunity to condemn Marr's theory of stages.] The transition from one qualitative state of language to another took place not through an explosion, not through the destruction at one blow of the old and the construction of the new but through the gradual and prolonged accumulation of the new quality, of the new structure of the language and through the gradual dying off of the old quality's elements. . . . They say that the theory of the development of language stages is a Marxist theory since it recognizes the necessity of sudden explosions as the conditions for the transition of language from the old quality to the new. This is, of course, false, for it is hard to find anything Marxist in this theory. . . . Marxism does not recognize sudden explosions in the development of a language, the sudden death of an existing language and the sudden construction of a new language. . . . Marxism maintains that the transition of a language from an old qualitative state to a new occurs not through an explosion, not through the destruction of an existing language and the creation of a new one, but through the gradual accumulation of elements of the new quality, consequently, through the gradual dying off of the elements of the old quality."

"There can be no doubt that the theory of hybridization can give nothing substantial to Soviet linguistics. If it is true that the main task of linguistics is to study the internal laws of a language's development, then it must be recognized that the theory of hybridization not only fails to meet this task, but does not even pose it. . . ."

4) The fourth question: "Was Pravda right in "a free discussion of linguistic problems?" — a question which illustrates to what depths in Soviet Moscow the simple human dignity of scholars and students fell. . . . It also is the best proof that "a free discussion of linguistic problems" was forbidden and all "linguistic opposition" during a quarter of a century was quelled by the very same hangman of linguistics to whom the question is addressed.

Answer: "It did the right thing" — and now follows a public flogging of the Soviet linguists, which is unique even in Soviet history. With an p227 inconceivable brutality the man responsible for this state of Soviet linguistics, J. Stalin, turns the survivors of his own linguistic terror into scapegoats for all the shortcomings of Soviet linguistics. Stalin's accusations give the best picture of the real state of Soviet linguistics:

"The discussion has been of great benefit. The discussion has made clear, first of all, that both in the center and in the repress a regime has dominated in linguistic bodies not typical of science and men of science. The slightest criticism of the state of affairs in Soviet linguistics, even the most timid attempts to criticize the so‑called 'new teaching' in linguistics were persecuted and stifled by the directors of linguistic circles. Valuable scholars and research workers in linguistics were removed from their positions and lowered in rank for criticism of the heritage of N. Ya. Marr and for the slightest disapproval of his teaching. Linguists were moved up into responsible positions not according to their qualification in the field but as they gave unconditional recognition to Marr's teaching. . . ."

The same infallible leader responsible for the murder and exile of the scholars who disagreed a year ago with Lysenko now teaches:

"It is universally recognized that no science can develop and prosper without a struggle of opinions, without free criticism. But this universally recognized rule has been ignored and trampled upon most unceremoniously. A self-contained bishop of infallible leaders has developed which has begun to ride rough-shod and behave in the most arbitrary manner after guaranteeing itself against any possible criticism. . . . Were I not convinced of the honesty of Comrade Meshchaninov and other linguists I should say that such behavior was equivalent to wrecking."

"How could this have happened? This happened becc the Arakcheyev-like regime established in linguistics cultivates irresponsibility and encourages such disorders. . . . The discussion has proved extremely useful mainly because it has brought to light this Arakcheyev-like⁠2 regime and smashed it to bit. . . . It has also brought to light the incredible confusion in views on the most important problems of linguistics which reigns among leading circles in this branch of science. Before the discussion began they were silent and ignored the unwholesome situation in linguistics. But after the discussion began, it became impossible for them to keep silent and they were compelled to stand forth in the pages of the press.⁠3 Well, it turned out that Marr's teaching contained a whole series of gaps, mistakes, inaccurately formulated problems, incompletely elaborated theses. One may ask why is it that p228 pupils of Marr have spoken up on this score only now, after the discussion begun? Why did they show no concern for this earlier? Why is it that they did not speak openly and honestly on the subject earlier, as befits scientists? Recognizing certain errors of Marr, the pupils of Marr, it appears, think that Soviet linguistics can be further developed only on the basis of the refined theory of Marr which they consider Marxist. Please, preserve us from the Marxism of Marr. Marr really wanted to and tried to be a Marxist, but he did not succeed in becoming a Marxist. He was merely a simplifier and vulgarizer⁠4 of Marxism. . . ."

And now Stalin who imposed on the country, a regime, in comparison with which the Arakcheyev regime appears pure liberalism, gives Marr a severe posthumous castigation:

"Marr introduced into linguistics an erroneous un‑Marxist formula of language as a superstructure. He confused himself, he confused linguistics. It is impossible to develop Soviet linguistics on the basis of an incorrect formula.

"Marr introduced into linguistics another formula, also writing and un‑Marxist, regarding the 'class-nature' of language. He confused himself, he confused linguistics. It is impossible to develop linguistics on the basis of a wrong formula which contradicts the entire history of peoples and languages.

"Marr introduced into linguistics an immodest, boastful, arrogant tone, not characteristic of Marxism, and leading to the wholesale and irresponsible rejection of everything in linguistics before Marr.

"Marr noisily fulminated against the method of comparative linguistical analysis as 'idealist,' nonetheless it must be said that not withstanding its substantial shortcomings the method of comparative historical analysis is still better, than the really idealist four-element analysis of Marr. Since the former is an incentive to work, to study languages and the second is an impetus to lying on top of the oven and reading teacups about the notorious four elements.

"Marr arrogantly dismissed any attempt to study groups (families) of languages as a manifestation of the theory of the proto-language. It cannot be denied, however, that kinship, for example of such nations as the Slavs, is beyond dispute, that the study of the linguistic kinship of these nations could be of great benefit to linguistics in studying the laws of the development of language. Understandably, the proto-language theory has nothing to do with this matter.

"To listen to Marr, and particularly to his 'pupils' one might think that there was no linguistics before Marr, that linguistics began with the appearance of Marr's 'new teaching.' Marx and Engels were considerably more modest. They believed that their dialectical materialism was the product of the development of sciences, philosophy included, over preceding periods.

p229 "Thus, the discussion was also of benefit to the extent that it brought to light ideological lacunae in Soviet linguistics.

"It is my belief that the quicker our linguistics gets rid of Marr's mistakes, the quicker it can be led out of the crisis in which it now finds itself.

"The liquidation of the Arakcheyev-like regime in linguistics, the repudiation of Marr's mistakes and the inculcation of Marxism linguistics — such is in my opinion the way which would make it possible to instill new health in Soviet linguistics. . . ."

And Stalin was in such a haste that on July 4 he again wrote on linguistics, replying to Comrade Ye. Krasheninnikova, in the Pravda. Stalin's answer does not bring something new, but he graciously agreed that "semantics is one of the important parts of linguistics." Soviet linguists were surely dumfounded on hearing Stalin's discovery that "the sense aspect of words and expressions has serious significance in the matter of language study. Therefore semantics must be accorded a place in linguistics suitable to it."

Why did that poor Communist slave ask such a question in the Stalinist land of liberty as: "To what extent, in your opinion, must linguistics occupy itself with the sense side of language, semantics, and historical semasiology and stylistics, or must the subject of linguistics be form alone?" Because of the fear of being accused of "idealism." But Stalin understands the dangers in this field and conditions his permission: "However, in the elaboration of questions of semantics and in the employment of its data, its significance should by no means be overestimated, and, more important still, it must not be abused. . . ."

Stalin's declaration about Marx's statement, "Language is the immediate reality of thought," brought him to the corollary: "It is said that thoughts appear in the head of man before they are expressed in speech, that they emerge without language material, without being garbed in language, naked, as it were. But this is completely erroneous. No matter what thoughts arise in the head of man, they can rise and exist only on the basis of the material of language, on the basis of terms and phrases. Bare thoughts, free of language material, free of the natural matter of language, do not exist." We do not wish to discuss here this teaching, but it is the good luck of Einstein, of modern physicists, and especially of poets, who often think in images not to live presently in the Soviet Union. The question is very characteristic and for us Stalin's answer is very valuable as a confirmation of the existence of the Communist upside-down language:

"Briefly speaking, you want to know whether classes influence language, whether they introduce into language their specific words and expressions, whether there are instances where people attribute to one and the same words and expressions different sense significations, depending on class affiliation.

'Yes, classes influence language, introduce into language their specific words and expressions and sometimes understand differently the very same words and expressions. There is no doubt about it."

p230 As we see, the Soviet linguists also are faced with the problem of why democracy, aggression, truth, liberty, national, self-determination, etc., have different meanings outside the Soviet Union as compared with the Soviet meanings.

"N. Ya. Marr considered grammar an empty 'formality' and people who considered a grammatical system the basis of language formalists. This is altogether stupid. . . . The reason for stagnation in Soviet linguistics is not the 'formalism' invented by N. Ya. Marr and his 'students,' but the Arakcheyev-like regime. N. Ya. Marr's 'students' created the Arakcheyev-like regime. N. Ya. Marr and his closest colleagues introduced theoretical confusion into linguistics. To do away with linguistics, will lead it onto a broad path and will enable Soviet linguistics to occupy the first place in world linguistics."

From the whole linguistic discussion we should like to note some important statements, which are proof of our above-mentioned theses. The Russian Communists are fully aware that, semantically speaking, they speak an upside-down language in comparison with that of the West. V. Kudryavtsev, of Irkutsk State University, on June 13, wrote in the Pravda:

"N. Ya. Marr never ignored the formal side of speech, but he always gave prime emphasis to the most essential thing in language — its semantics, its content, its close connection with thought. Expressing class-consciousness, language itself becomes class nature.

"The class nature of language appears not in its phonetic or morphologic structure, but in content, into the same words (for example, freedom, equality, brotherhood and such) the bourgeoisie and the proletariat read different meanings. V. I. Lenin exposed the class nature of the bourgeois use of words most mercilessly.

"The class nature of a national language can be seen most clearly in dictionary work. For example, the interpretive dictionaries of literary Russian of the prerevolutionary period distorted, hid and confused in all kinds of ways the class essence of international political and philosophical terminology: revolution, s, party, agitation, propaganda, idealism, materialism, etc.

"The class nature of pre‑revolutionary Russian was expressed, by the way, also in the fact that after October the people discarded all that was ideologically alien and unacceptable. The Russian language was cleansed of lexical rubbish, was enriched with many new words which reflect the new socialist life, the new world view. Our language has become ideologically different, distinct from prerevolutionary speech."

In the discussion, in spite of the Russian censorship, there escaped a clear proof regarding the Russification of the non‑Russian languages, presented by N. Sauranbayev, July 4, in the Pravda:

"The theory of the 'class nature' of language led to the denial of the existence of a language common to a whole nation, to a whole people, p231 while the theory of development by stages incorrectly dealt with laws of the gradual transition of languages from one condition to another.

"It must be said that the 'theory' of a break and sudden transformation of language was frequently reflected unfavorably in the practice of language development. In Kazakhstan, as in other republics whose languages have for the most part only recently been written, there were cases in which many root words were driven from the literature under the influence of the theory of the 'class nature' of language. In doing this, many linguists followed the premise that language is superstructure and thus, to correspond to the new socialist be able, a new socialist language had to be reacted through an upheaval."

To what depths of human degradation Russian and Soviet linguistics fell may be illustrated by some quotations from post-Stalin articles. Prof. T. Lomtev, of Moscow State University, on June 27, in a Pravda article, "A Fighting Program for the Elaboration of Marxist Linguistics," writes:

J. V. Stalin's article marks anew period in the development of the science of language; like a powerful beam it illuminates the paths of further development of Soviet linguistics. . . . Comrade Stalin's new work will join the precious body of the most outstanding classics of Marxism-Leninism. It is a brilliant example of creative development of Marxism-Leninism in linguistics."

Prof. G. Akhvlediani, U. S. S. R. Academy of Sciences, Stalin University, Tbilisi, June 27, writes in Pravda:

"This remarkable dissension acquired truly international significance when J. V. Stalin submitted his article, 'On Marxism in Linguistics,' which initiated a new era in the history of Soviet linguistics. The importance of this discussion is enormous. Its development is being followed with intense attention by the entire Soviet public, all the world's linguistic science, and by our friends and foes. . . . Consolidation of Soviet linguists around these tasks is essential and possible. The difficulties will be overcome because Stalinist science is all‑powerful. . . ."

The Doctor of Philological Sciences N. Sauranbayev, in Pravda July 4, sums up:

"J. V. Stalin's work 'On Marxism in Linguistics' is a great new contribution to creative Marxism. It lays the ground work for a new Soviet materialist linguistics; it marks a turning point in the history of linguistics. The great Stalin has opened before Soviet linguistics a bright path, clear prospects."

The Academician V. Vinogradov, Pravda, July 4, is happy and enthusiastic in the article, "A Program of Marxist Linguistics":

"Stalin's article gives clear, thorough and precise answers to the most important questions of the general Marxist theory of languages. . . . Stalin's article . . . brilliantly illuminates the path and tasks of future development. . . . Stalin brings a new bright light to the understanding of language's structure . . ." etc., and etc — ad nauseam.

p232 As we clearly see from the end of the "linguistic discussion," for the Soviet linguist it is not it whether the new "Stalinist program" is a right one; such a question cannot even be put. What is important is that, whether right or wrong, it is a political decision of the party dictatorship, and again it must be obeyed, even if one's knowledge, reason, and conscience dictate otherwise.Moskva locuta, causa finita.⁠a

Sic transit gloria of N. Ya. Marr and of all the methods applied to the non‑Russian peoples and hailed by R. Jacobson as the last word in modern linguistics. But what a betrayal of human and scholarly dignity, if a scholar enjoying outside the Soviet Union academic freedom has, during nearly a third of a century in his bibliography, not a single sentence of criticism of Marr's monstrosity, not a single word in defense of the freedom of linguistics in the U. S. S. R. — but only that famous glorifications (given in photostats) of Stalin's linguistic policy until 1950, which was, as the Communist Chikobava clearly stated, the application of "artificial means, ""use of coercion" against the non‑Russian nationalities.

Marr's theory repudiated — but who can recall to life the thousands of writers, scholar, teachers of the non‑Russian nations who were murdered for opposing the"Marxist-Leninist teaching on language"?

Communist Witnesses With Reference to the Persecutions of the Non‑Russian Languages in the Soviet Union

All our accusations against the Russian Communist Party regarding its Russification of non‑Russian languages were supported in the linguistic discussion by following Soviet scholars:

a) Prof. Arn. Chikoba, Pravda, May 9, 1950, as we have mentioned, accused Marr, because he proposed to apply "artificial means, scientifically worked out, in order to accelerate this process" of a "single language" in the Soviet Union;

b) The secretary of the Armenian Communist Party, G. Arutinov, according to Pravda, March 5, 1951, on the Fifteenth Congress of the party declared:

"The work of the Armenian Republic Academy of Sciences' Language Institute has been unsatisfactory. Supporters of Marr, who directed the institute, persecuted and expelled from scientific institutes all who did not share Marr's anti-Marxist notions. The bureau of the Armenian Communist Party Central Committee, the speaker said, did not make a profound study of the struggle in linguistics and took an incorrect stand toward some scientists. This mistake was rectified only following Comrade Stalin's well-known statements on linguistics."

c) The secretary of the Moldavian Communist Party, Comrade Tkach, according to Pravda, April 4, 1951, on the Third Congress of the party, stated:

"Comrade Tkach, Secretary of the Moldavian Communist Party Central Committee, noted in his speech that following the publication of p233 Comrade Stalin's works on linguistics serious shortcomings were revealed in textbooks on the Moldavian language. Attempts were made to reduce the importance of the Moldavian language. Comrade Koroban, a staff member of the institute of the History of Language and Literature, has declared that the Moldavian language allegedly has no history. This 'theory' has not yet been duly rebutted by Moldavian scholars and writers."

d) Illuminating is the aircraft carrier by A. Ye. Mordinov, "On the Development of Languages of Socialist Nations in the U. S. S. R.," Voprosy Filosofii, Nr. 3, 1950 (published January, 1951). This article illustrated further much of the behind-the‑scenes mechanics, clearly reflecting the fluctuations of the party line:

"It is not our task here to show the great profundity of the ideas expressed by J. V. Stalin in his new works on problems of linguistics. This article is simply an attempt to credit the development of the languages of U. S. S. R. peoples in the light of J. V. Stalin's statements in that part of his work in which he speaks of the development of the Russian language during the past 30 years. The question of the role of the Russian language in development of the languages of all the peoples of our country merits particular attention. . . .

"The policy of national oppression, the extremely low level of economic and social development of the majority of peoples in Tsarist Russia, lack of a written language and literature in their native language, lack of schools conducted in the native tongue — these things impeded development of these peoples and were causes of the backwardness of their languages. This backness, however, was relative. These languages were poor in words expressing ideas of science and technology, philosophy and politics. But they were rich enough to create monumental works of oral folklore, as is shown, for example, by the Kirgiz, Kazakh, Yakut, Buryat and many other epics; to create innumerable tales and songs, stories and byliny [folk epics]; to express the folk wisdom in proverbs and sayings. The languages of the Yakut, Buryat and other Siberian peoples, including the formerly most backward, possessed a great vocabulary in animal husbandry, hunting and fishing, and also a large number of Russian words (names of agricultural implements, household objects, food, clothes, etc.). The vocabulary of even such a backward and small people as the Yakut was far from exhausted by E. K. Pekarsky's 13‑volume dictionary, compiled before the revolution. This is not to mention the various peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia, who possessed a rich spiritual culture in the past.

Thanks to their inexhaustible wealth, the language of the peoples of the U. S. S. R. were basically able to meet the demands of the new, social order without fundamental changes.

"Lenin and Stalin, the leaders of our Party have always taught that the peoples of the U. S. S. R. can join in socialist construction, can acquire and develop socialist culture, can build their own national Soviet state only in their own language. Therefore, the great cultural work which has gone on in our country since the great October socialist p234 revolution has been accompanied among these peoples by the establishment of written languages, literary languages, scientific terminology, etc., which meant not the creation of new languages, but throughout development and enrichment of the national language of each people, disclosure and utilization of all of its potentialities and the enlargement of its vocabulary with new words, for the most part from the Russian language, reflecting new ideas in politics, science, technology, literature and art. . . .

"Development of the languages of the socialist nations of the U. S. S. R. is expressed above all in changes in their vocabulary, in enlarging it with new words and expressions reflecting the new, socialist economy and the new social structure and culture. These new words, on the one hand, are newly molded from the vocabulary of the national languages themselves, and, on the other hand, are borrowed from the Russian and assimilated in these national tongues.

"All the languages of our peoples have completely assimilated the ideas and words 'the Party,' 'the revolution,' 'Soviet,' 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'Leninism,' 'collective farm,' 'five-year plan,' 'Young Communist League,' 'Stakhanovite movement,' 'self-criticism,' and thousands of words from all branches of science and technology, literature and art, testifying to the unprecedented progress in the cultural level of the working people and their political consciousness.

"The enrichment of vocabulary with new words has brought the need for scientific work on terminology.

"The tremendous scope of work on terminology is expressed in the fact that a single special terminology committee in Armenia approved more than 18,000 medical terms, 13,000 legal terms and a large number of terms in various other scientific fields. About 40,000 terms were approved in Soviet Latvia in only three years (1947‑1949). Similar rapid enrichment of language with new terms may also be observed in the other Soviet republics, in particular those republics which did not even have a written language before the October [revolution] and consequently could not have had a scientific terminology. During the Soviet rule a great number of terminological dictionaries have been published in all the languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union. The basic sources for creation of new terms and scientific terminology generally have been, on the one hand, the Russian terminology and the riches of the native language of each people, and, on the other hand, international terminology assimilated via the Russian language. Naturally, the better developed and richer a language, the more opportunities there are for creating scientific and technological terminology in the language and, on the contrary, the less developed a language, the greater the need for borrowing terms from the Russian language.

"Maximum utilization of the wealth of a language in creating new terminology is imperative both as a matter of principle and from the purely practical point of view. In our cultural development we cannot ignore the wealth of any people's language and we must utilize all its resources first of all. If the given language possesses a word adequately reflecting the essence of this or that scientific concept, introduction of p235 a parallel term from another language can only bring confusion. Yet no serious linguist can expect terms to be created purely out of the material of the given language, in which it is often impossible to convey the essence of the concept to be expressed by the term. In such cases it is necessary to be daring in introducing the conventional terms employed in Rome. It should also be noted that some Russian terms must sometimes be introduced even when the corresponding words exist in this or that language, if literal translation of these terms does not reflect the specific sense given to them in Russian.

"In establishing terminology, Soviet science is waging a decisive struggle against bourgeois nationalist vestiges.

"As is known, bourgeois nationalists proposed eliminating international socio-political terminology from the languages. In Yakutia, for instance, they proposed substituting 'khamnachchyt,' which means 'hired person,' for the word 'proletarian.' Belo-russian bourgeois nationalists sought to replace the terms 'proletariat,' 'poor peasant,' 'socialist competition,' 'entrant in socialist competition,' with terms from bourgeois jargon — 'galota,' 'zlyden,' 'itti na vyperadki,' 'vyperadnik' — which express the scorn and hatred of exploiters for the working people and distort the meaning of these terms, substituting the concept of competitiveness for that of socialist emulation.

"It has been characteristic of bourgeois nationalists to attempt to orient the development of languages of peoples of the U. S. S. R. not upon Russian, but upon foreign languages. Thus, the nationalists of the eastern republics were oriented toward Persian, Turkic and Arabic languages, etc. They sought in this manner to estrange the languages of the peoples of the U. S. S. R. from the Russian language and from Soviet culture, and to strengthen the influence of foreign bourgeois culture. Bourgeois nationalism is closely linked with bourgeois cosmopolitanism. It is deeply hostile to the genuine interests of all peoples of our country.

Enrichment of the vocabulary of our languages has been the greatest contribution to their development. However, notwithstanding the great number of new words which these languages have acquired in the building of socialism, their basic vocabulary has remained without important changes, existing as a base for the formation of new words. . . .

"Along with the basic vocabulary of the languages of the peoples of the U. S. S. R., the grammatical structure has also remained within important change. However, it has been somewhat improved, above all in morphology, particularly among peoples who formerly had no written language.

"One must note, however, that in creating written languages among the peoples of the U. S. S. R., gross distortions occurred could as a result of many linguists' erroneous conception of language as superstructure. Having assumed that the language was a superstructure on the base and that prior to the revolution it had been a superstructure over a bourgeois or prebourgeois base, they drew the conclusion that with the liquidation of the old base this, its superstructure, also had to be liquidated. Hence came the further conclusion of the necessity of explosive development of the language, a leap from the old quality in the language to a p236 new quality, the conclusion that the languages of socialist nations must be new, socialist languages. Such concepts inevitably ensued from N. Ya. Marr's teaching on the superstructure nature of language, which imbued young linguists with impermissible scorn for the laws of language as allegedly obsolete and hence under socialism requiring complete breaking up and even replacement with new 'laws' invented by their fertile imaginations.

"The theoretic confusion and vulgarization of Marxist study of language by N. Ya. Marr and his followers led to gross errors in the work of developing a written language in many of the national republics.

"N. Ya. Marr's 'followers,', proceeding from his erroneous remains, completely ignored the specific features of national languages and, in oversimplified and vulgarized manner, interpreted the leading role of the Russian language in the development of national languages as a mechanical hybridization of the two. The practical results of such a vulgarized approach to the development of national languages was the discarding from some alphabets of a number of letters which reflected phonetic peculiarities of the national languages; the orthography of these languages, based on the peculiarities of their pronunciation became extremely involved. This confusion was most centrally expressed in the spelling of new words taken by the national languages from the Russian vocabulary. Academician I. I. Meshchaninov and professor G. P. Serdyuchenko formulated the basic principle followed in practice in the Turkic languages and in the overwhelming majority of other languages in regard to spelling the terms entering these tongues from the Russian.

"They decided that 'in order to remove artificial inconsistencies' between Russian orthography and the orthographies of peoples of the U. S. S. R., the general rule be followed that Russian terms and international terminology borrowed through the medium of Russian be written in accord with Russian orthography, 'allowing no distortions in the writing of these words.'

"Thus the followers of the [Marrist] 'new teaching' considered the subjugation of new words and terms recently acquired by the national languages to the laws of pronunciation and orthography of these languages as introducing an 'artificial inconsistency,' as 'a distortion in the writing of these terms.' This very harmful view, involving a break with the existing laws of the national languages, led to anarchy in orthography, to innumerable difficulties in mastery of the grammar of the native language, in the work of local newspapers and magazines, etc. Every attempt to construct an orthography for national languages in correspondence with their own laws was found by the leaders of linguistics circles to be an attempt to impended the harmonizing of national languages with Russian and an inadmissible and detrimental questioning of the infallibility of the 'new teaching on language,' and was energetically stopped.

"Yet this 'general rule' could not be accepted in totality, and to accept en a part of it would bring only confusion and harm.

"In the first place, in all the languages of the peoples of the U. S. S. R. there exist thousands of Russian words which were acquired hundreds p237 of years ago, were assimilated you the national languages and therefore have become an organic part of the latter. This refers particularly to names of household objects, implements of labor, personal names, etc. In Yakut, for example, the Russian word 'stol' [table] is pronounced 'ostool,' 'shkola' 'pskuola,' 'mashina' (machine) 'masynna,' 'ivan' 'uibaan," etc. These and similar words have been completely assimilated by the languages in accord with their own laws and have become an organic part of them. However, according to the 'general rule' established by Academician I. I. Meshchaninov and Prof. G. P. Serdyuchenko, it must be explained that all these words are Russian and therefore must be written not as pronounced in a given language but as they are in Russian (that is, in order to write the most elementary words currently in one's native language it would first be necessary to master the Russian language and Russian orthography). It is perfectly clear that carrying out this rule would require a fundamental break with the existing norms of the national languages without any scientific or practical basis for it.

"In the second place, the demand for mechanically transferring Russian orthography to the languages of the other peoples of the U. S. S. R. obviously contradicts not only the laws of the languages, but also the history of the development of the languages. In Rome, for example, words acquired from other languages are subjected to Russian orthography. Thus it is the French word 'partie' is written and pronounced 'partia' in Russian, 'dictature' 'diktatura,' etc., etc.

"In the third place, in many cases the preservation of Russian orthography in other languages is quite impossible and leads to absurdity. The word 'Communist' in the accusative in Yakut should be written 'Communuuhy.' but the 'new teaching' of language required it to be written 'Communistu,' that is, to give it the Russian dative form.

"In the fourth place, it is impossible for two systems of orthography to exist in one and the same language: one for words of the language itself and also for words borrowed long ago, the other for recently acquired words.

"There is no basis for the contention that to master another language it is necessary to transfer its laws to the native language, in particular the contention that transference of Russian orthography to national languages is necessary for harmonizing languages, that this can facilitate mastery of the Russian language. The 'drawing together' of languages, recommended by N. Ya. Marr's followers, actually only hampers their actual harmonizing and brings inconsistency into the orthography.

"Comrade Stalin teaches that the vocabulary of a language acquires its greatest import when it is guided by the grammar of the language.

"From the sense of this statement and from practice itself it is evident that new words organically enter the language and are more rapidly assimilated when their pronunciation and spelling correspond to the phonetic peculiarities of the given language and its rules of orthography. However, N. Ya. Marr's followers demanded that Russian words borrowed by languages of U. S. S. R. peoples should not be subordinated to the rules of pronunciation and spelling of the national languages. If one p238 considers that in the Yakut press and Yakut scientific literature, for instance, words borrowed from the Russian constitute a quite considerable proportion of the text, it becomes clear that this demand was an attempt to make a radical break with the language and establish new pronunciation and orthography. Moreover, Marr's 'followers' demanded exclusion from the Yakut alphabet of many letters standing for specific sounds that are as necessary in this language as all the existing letters in the Russian alphabet are. It is not hard to see how illogical it would be to exclude any part of the alphabet from the Russian. N. Ya. Marr's followers forgot that our Party, defending in every way the socialist content of U. S. S. R. peoples' culture and developing its unity, does not at all demand unification of languages and elimination of the specific features of national forms of culture. Destroying historically developed rules of pronunciation does not make it easier, but harder for the working people to master new words borrowed from the Russian, i.e., yields results contrary to the aims proclaimed by the supporters of the 'new teaching' on language.

"As a consequence of the above-mentioned distortions, the literary language of some peoples, particularly those which did not have a written language before, has of late systematically diverged from the folk speech, and to attain literacy in the native language has become harder and harder. I. K. Danilov, an experienced teacher of the Yakut language, wrote to the Yakutsk branch of the Academy of Sciences in this connection: 'Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of errors in writing Yakut are in spelling of borrowed words.' There was the case, for instance, of the best correspondence school student of the Vilyuisk Teachers' Training School, himself a Yakut, who scored excellent in all his subjects but failed three times in his examination in writing Yakut, an examination passed only after three years of renewed attempt. . . . Such are the results of the erroneous practice of 'language building' introduced by N. Ya. Marr's followers.

"They proclaimed the rule of synharmonization [vowel harmony] in the Turkic languages as having lost its applicability in words borrowed from the Russian. Accordingly, in Yakut, for instance, the word 'party' is now spelled 'partia' instead 'paartyia' [in contradistinction to the Russian form 'partia'].

"Comrade Stalin teaches that 'the distinguishing trait of frontier is that it sets rules for word changes having in mind not specific words but words in general.' But the Marrists demanded that first it would be determined whether to apply to it the spelling of the native language or of Russian. . . .

"No one, of course, could demand that an orthography be completely unchanged. But the necessity for any kind of changes clarifications in it must be reasoned out and based on serious scientific and practical considerations of the individual case. The confusion which the Marrist brought into the language of some peoples must be removed. For this it is necessary, first of all, that the orthography be made to correspond with the norms of pronunciation in each language that the written language again may become simpler to read and easily accessible to the p239 people, adapted to the creating of real people's works of literature and art. Secondly, it is necessary to restore letters inadvisedly deleted from some alphabets, which are connected with the characteristic features of the phonetics of the national languages.

"From J. V. Stalin's statement to the effect that under socialism languages will freely Erich one another in an atmosphere of cooperation comes the conclusion that Russian words recently acquired by the national languages must become an organic part of them, enrich them, and not contradict their specific traits, their century‑old rules and norms. The followers of N. Ya. Marr introduced violation of the national languages' rules of pronunciation and orthography because of their lack of understanding of the fundamentally new relationship among our languages, because they tried to oppose one language to another."

Harry Schwartz, New York Times, March 18, 1951, published the following summary of this article under the title "Russification Seen in Soviet Tongues":

"Premier Stalin's strictures last year against Soviet philologists who followed the doctrines of N. Y. Marr have led to a policy change in the campaign aid at the Russification on non‑Russian peoples in the Soviet Union, the latest issue of Voprosy Filosofi (Questions of Philosophy) to arrive in this country reveals.

"An article in this authoritative magazine denounces the crudities of Marr's followers among philologists who inserted Russian words into non‑Russian languages in the U. S. S. R. and insisted that these words be used in every language according to the orthography and grammar of the Russian language.

"The result of this practice was that the orthography and grammar of many non‑Russian languages in the U. S. S. R. became hopelessly confused, the article declares. The resultant 'anarchy' created great difficulties for people wishing to learn the grammar of their own language as well as for the proper operation of newspapers and magazines published in languages other than Russian.

"Marr's followers are accused of having blocked every effort to enrich these languages with Russian terms in accordance with the orthography and grammar of the non‑Russian tongues. They are said to have followed this policy for fear such consistency would hinder the language's tendency to approach the Russian language, the major goal of their work.

"These revelations apparently confirm assertions made outside the Soviet Union in past years that the Soviet Government has been engaged in a policy of Russification rather than in permitting free development of non‑Russian cultures.

"The same conclusion is supported by the revelation in the magazine that the great majority of non‑Russian nationalities in the U. S. S. R. have shifted from Latin or other alphabets to the Cyrillic alphabet used in Russian. Among the peoples who have abandoned their native alphabets for the Russian are twenty Turkic peoples, Ugro-Finnic peoples, Tadzhiks, Ossetians and Buryats. Where the Cyrillic alphabet did not have sounds required by a language, modified Cyrillic characters were p240 added to represent those sounds. Only the languages of the Baltic states, as well as Finnish, Georgian and Armenian, still use non‑Cyrillic alphabets. "In the future non‑Russian peoples are to be encouraged to adopt as many words from the Russian language as required, both to express concepts unexpressible by existing words and to express concepts inexactly expressed by related words in such languages. In adapting such Russian words for other languages, however, the grammatical and orthographic rules of those languages are to be followed, thus avoiding the chaos and confusion that formerly existed.

"A. E. Mordinov, author of the article, hits out at 'bourgeois nationalists,' charging that some philologists attempted to widen the gap between the Russian and non‑Russian languages in the U. S. S. R. by turning to foreign languages, rather than Russian, for new terms needed in the non‑Russian vocabularies. Efforts were made to orient languages toward Turkish, Persian and Arabic in order to strengthen the influence of bourgeois rather than Russian culture, he asserted.

"Mr. Mordinov makes clear that it is Communist party policy to foster in every way possible development of non‑Russian languages so that they approach ever more closely the Russian language. In doing so in the future, however, account is to be taken of the peculiarities of each individual non‑Russian language and the official policy is nominally to encourage the development of these tongues though with ever greater Russian influence."

These persecutions descended not only upon the languages in Siberia, but above all attacked Ukrainian and Byelo-Ruthenian, once hailed progress by R. Jacobson!

But until now no Russian scholar had the courage to mention it and to demand the abolition of the "reforms" executed by the Marrists.

We emphasize it would be a mistake to assume that Stalin's article granted 'home rule" to non‑Russian languages, the goal remains Russification, the methods alone many undergo change. . . .

3. The True Reasons of the Revocation of Marr's Linguistic Theory by Stalin

The American weekly press offered a little information about the revocation, but was completely unable to evaluate this fact or to explain why Marr's theory was revoked. The Communist propaganda established in this country such an excellent Iron Curtain that one seldom finds an American linguist who has heard anything at all about the Soviet linguistic theory created by Marr, which was forced for nearly a quarter of a century by the Communist Party on the linguistics and philologies of all the nationalities of the Soviet Union. Nobody in the United States heard that thousands of linguists, philologists, and teachers paid with their lives or with years of slave-labor-camp imprisonment for the opposition against this monstrosity of Marr's theory.

Any student of Soviet life is struck by the "haste" expressed in Stalin's lines — "the quicker, the quicker" — where is the fire? What are the real p241 reasons for this haste and the revocation of Marr? It is, in my opinion, our duty here in the United States to analyze carefully the revocation of Marr's theory. The true reasons must have been extraordinarily urgent. This is proved by the participation of Stalin himself in the discussion, not extraordinary brutality with which Stalin discarded Marr, who, for many years, glorified Stalin at every opportunity and in his — Stalin's — name, acted in linguistics.

The application of this theory for nearly a quarter of a century had the following results:

Inside the Soviet Union, linguistics faced complete bankruptcy. In the last twenty years, the Soviet linguists did not produce a single outstanding work and the largest Slavic nation, the Russian, is still today without a complete etymological dictionary. The application of Marr's theories to Ukrainian and Byelo-Ruthenian created the so‑called "linguistic national oppositions" who had to be liquidated by the G. P. U. and N. K. V. D. The same thing happened among all other non‑Russian nationalities.

From Chikobava's critique we learned how tragic the problem of the younger generation of linguists in the Soviet Union appears to be. Only Marr's orthodox "pupils" could make a career, usually half-illiterate party hooligans; the talented younger generation created a kind of "linguistic underground" searching for ideas in the works of the pre‑World War I scholars. Apparently a "linguistic opposition" again was growing and the party was confronted with the dilemma of either "burning at the stake" all the "bourgeois nonsense" of Russian scholars — Shakhmatov, Sobolevskii, Fortunatov; of the Ukrainian scholars — Potebnya, St. Smal-Stocki, Ohonowsky; of the Byelo-Russian — Karsky, etc., or of revising its attitude toward Marr. Any high school student could find out the truth about Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh from any foreign etymological dictionary in a library and examine the "truth" of the "stage theory" on the Russian language itself, which from pushkinin to Stalin went through the "stage of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism," but did not change the superstructure by "explosions or jumps."

side the Soviet Union Marr's etymologies were highly appreciated you Slavic scholars as the best humorous creations ever written, and his opinions for many years were the laughingstock of all linguistic meetings in Europe.

This state of affairs — inside, an open bankruptcy; outside, ironical laughter — which was heard also inside the Soviet Union — was very embarrassing for Stalin himself because Marr wrote constantly that he was "fulfilling the orders of the ingenious vozhd," and, besides, Marr was half Georgian. Thus the Russian "linguistic underground" in the present era of Russian "national bolshevism" blamed the Georgians for this bankruptcy of Russian philology — the more so, because Marr's theory was for a rather long time enforced by another Georgian, Beria. That explains why Chikobava, also a Georgian, was ordered to start the discussion and why Stalin himself participated in it, and the Russian linguists themselves were made scapegoats for this state of affairs. The Georgians are saving Russian linguistics, because p242 the Russians themselves proved incapable of applying Marxism-Leninism to linguistics. . . .

Thus here we have two important reasons for the revocation: bankruptcy and the need of the shift responsibility from the perpetrators to their victims.

However, it is not these "scientific" reasons, in our opinion, that explain the haste of Stalin, but the political and ideological consequences of Marr's doctrines. To understand these true reasons we have to keep in mind the post-World War II expansion of Soviet Moscow. The influence sphere of Soviet Moscow from 1945‑1950 in Europe and Asia included East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria on the one hand, China, Korea on the other. A tremendous bulk of the population of our planet, some 800 million, are forced to revolve around the Communist sun of the Kremlin. For these tremendous masses Moscow has two ideologies:

a) Pan‑Slavism. The Soviet Union appears to the gullible West as the successful realization of "Slavic Unity," and since 1941 Moscow has used the Pan‑Slavic idea as a rather successful weapon for her propaganda.

Well, how can there exist a Slavic unity and Slavic family of languages if the linguistic theory of Marr, approved by the Communist Party as Marxist-Leninist wisdom, does not recognize Slavic kinship at all This ir contradiction chops all four legs off the Soviet Pan‑Slavic Trojan horse, on which Soviet Moscow parades in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and now hopes to reinvade Yugoslavia. Pan‑Slavism, after World War II, has become a most important weapon of Soviet Moscow, not only among the Slavic neighbors, but also in South America, Canada, and especially in the United States. There are special Pan‑Slav organizations in the United States with many ramifications, listed as front organizations for the disintegration of the U. S. A. by the Attorney General.

Therefore, how can Soviet Moscow conduct this Pan‑Slavic propaganda without recognizing a special Slavic ethnic, cultural, linguistic group which, of course, had to develop from a common Slavic proto-language declared by Marr in the Marxist-Leninist new science of language as bourgeois nonsense?

But this is only the beginning Ontario post-World War II Pan‑Slavic troubles of Stalin. Soviet Moscow included in her sphere of influence the leading European centers of Slavistics: in Cracow (with a famous Slavic Institute and the traditions of the Rocznik Slavistyczny and the Academy of Sciences); in Prague (which was, until 1939, the leading Slavic center with the journal Slavia, the Slavic Institute, the Ukrainian University, the Kondakovianum, etc.); in Sofia with its once distinguished Academy. Slavic Comparative Philology and also Indo-European Philology were taught by special chairs in the universities of all the satellite countries — even in Roumania and Hungary. In Roumania the Communist Party began in 1948 to force Marr's theory on the philosophical faculty of the University of Bucharest by two vociferous "Marrists," Graur and Rosetti, who in the Bulletin Linguistique (1949) joined the "new p243 Marxist-Leninist teaching" and started in the university a real cat-and‑dog fight with the opponents.⁠5

The dilemma of Soviet Moscow was either to liquidate them all — or to liquidate Marr's theory.

To abolish the chairs of Comparative Slav and Indo-European Philological which, of course, miss the mark, because in Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, England, and partly the United States, there would still remain the existing chairs of Comparative Slavic Philology in the universities.

Besides, the abolition of Compare Slavic Philology by Pan‑Slavic Moscow would be a "show for the gods" and for the whole world. Thus Soviet Moscow became involved in a tragicomical situation in which the whole "prestige" of the universal genius Stalin was at stake. On the one hand, Soviet Moscow "realizes the Pan‑Slav idea" and proclaims herself as the "big brother and protector of all Slavic nations" within the Soviet sphere and in the whole world; on the other, Marxist-Leninist linguistics of Marr denounces this Pan‑Slavic ideology of the Soviet government in politics as a "humbug and a fraud of the bourgeois linguistics" because a Slavic family of language does not exist at all such an n77id is "racism, fascism, etc." Who will defend the idea of the existence of a Slavic fama of languages related by kinship, used as a basis for the Pan‑Slavic ideology of Communist Moscow? The bourgeois Slavistics and linguistics outside the Soviet Union! They, the bourgeoisie, will defend the Soviet Moscow Communists, Pan‑Slavists against the Marxist-Leninist linguistics of Marr, and denounce Marr's Marxist-Leninist linguistics as humbug. Think for a moment — bourgeois Slavistics defend the Communists, Pan‑Slavists of Moscow against their own Marxist-Leninist linguistics, which declare them to be "humbugists, racists, fascists. . . ."

b) The second idea with which Soviet Moscow leads the masses is: The Communist world revolution for the "establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat," the World Soviet Union, the classless society; the arsenal of the world revolution, the Soviet Union, already solved the "nationality problem" once and forever by the "absolute equality of all nations, languages, cultures" in the Soviet Union. "Join us; do not miss the bus"; every nation outside the Soviet Union is invited. . . !

But at the same time Marr's theory of stages introduced virtually a kind of hierarchy among the nations of the Soviet Union and of the world, a hierarchy of the nations, their cultures and languages, denouncing the very idea of equality. There are "frozen" languages, cultures, and nations, economically backward with "obsolete" linguistic systems which are even deprived, according to Marr, of any possibility of development. The implication of such a thesis is that these nations would do best by accepting immediately the language of "attained Socialism," Russian.

Well, what nation likes to hear from the Soviet linguistics that its language is "backward, obsolete, frozen, without any hope of future development," practically sentenced to death? Which non‑Russian p244 Communist likes to hear his own mother tongue and his national feelings insulted in such a way by Soviet linguistics?

Thus inside the Soviet Union all the non-Indo-European languages were denounced by Marr as "obsolete, backward language systems"; even the Georgian language was put into the tertiary period. But all the other languages of the Soviet Union — the Finno-Ugric, Turkic, and Mongolian languages were even classed as systems of the secondary period — still living fossils! Thus were insulted the Karelo-Finns, the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, the Azerbaijanians, the Kirgizs, the Turkmen, the Estonians, all having their own "national republics," and the rest of the non‑Russian peoples forcibly included in the Russian Federative Socialist Republic and enjoying "national autonomies" — the Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryat-Mongolians, Komis, Maris, Mordovians, Chuvashs, Yakuts, etc. . . .

We have been informed that the Russian Communist Party again had to deal in these countries with a growing undercurrent of a "national linguistic opposition" against Soviet Moscow, because Marr's stage theory represented an officially blessed linguistic discrimination against the month languages of these non‑Russian peoples. Marr's stage theory established "master-race languages," and doomed the "backward obsolete languages" to die out. . . . Thus the Marxist-Leninist teaching of language virtually established "Jim Crow compartments" for all non-Indo-European and Semitic languages, according to the language stage, like the discrimination in some southern American states according to color. After the rebellion of Tito, the Communist Party nervously investigated the question: Does not Marr's theory provoke Titoism?

But Marr's stage theory created the greatest embarrassment for Soviet Moscow after the victory of Communism in China. The Chinese language is, according to Marr, the bottom of backwardness and primitiveness, belonging to the primary period, and put in one class with the language of the African Hottentots, Nyam-Nyam, etc. The Chinese, who created a great culture, philosophy, and art while Europe was still in a state of barbarism, must regard this classification as an extraordinary achievement of Soviet linguistics, wisdom, and political tact. They must be forced to the conclusion that the Soviet "devils" do not different fundamentally from all the other European "devils."

Thus Marr's theory became for Soviet Moscow a terrible burden in her political and cultural propaganda — a real nuisance nature constant embarrassment inside and outside the Soviet Union. As Marr's theory was hailed in every publication of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, in every Communist Party publication as Marxist-Leninist and "based on the method of dialectical and historical materialism," this theory in reality made Marx, Lenin, the Communist Party, and the Soviet Academy of Sciences ridiculous in the eyes of every intelligent person everywhere. . . .

China, in my opinion, forced the hasty brutal manner of the posthumous liquidation of Marr by Stalin himself.

Marr's fantasies about the origin of the Goths also ridiculed Soviet history in the eyes of the whole world. He denied their origin in Scandinavia, declaring the Goths a "native population," which formed, 166‑375, p245 the Gothic Empire in the Ukraine;⁠b he connected them by his etymological method with the Georgians of the Caucasus and finally with Gog and Magog of the Bible.⁠6

We regard as the next reason for Marr's repudiation, his formulation of the tasks of Soviet linguists and philologists in the current "world revolution." Marr thought that their task was "to speed up by artificial means the unification of language" first in the Soviet Union, then in the whole world. Every student of Soviet matters was aware that such a program in the Soviet Union represents a gradual "Russification" of all non‑Russian peoples in the Soviet Union. This program was to go hand in hand with the elevation of the Russian language "as the lineage of Lenin and Stalin," and the "attained Socialism" to the "international language of the world proletariat." This attempt of Marr to degrade linguists and philologists of all non‑Russian languages to the level of "Russificators" and killers of their mother tongues created in the Soviet Union from 1928‑1939 a strong national opposition which demanded the removal of many thousands of scholars, teachers and writers of all non‑Russian nationalities.

After World War II even whole peoples and their republics were destroyed because this Russification excited such hatred of Soviet Moscow that the population sympathized with the Germans. Thus the Kalmyck, the Chechen-Ingush, the Crimean Tatar Republics were abolished. the Communist Party understood the ultimate cause of these national oppositions and traced them to Marr's theory. Hence the party had to ask itself: Can we impose this program on the linguists and philologists of the satellite countries? Can we afford in the island present international situation such "purges and liquidations" of linguistic oppositions in the satellite countries? Does not Marr's theory everywhere foster and stimulate anti-Russian nationalism among the satellites?

Finally, we are sure, the Communist Party clearly realized what a deadly ideological weapon, if used by the Western democracies in the war of ideas, Marr's theory would be. Soviet Moscow remembers the echoes of the 1936 Promethean Linguistic Congress in Warsaw of the exiled scholars and linguists of the non‑Russian peoples of the Soviet Union. Could the Soviets be really uninformed of the fact that in February, 1950, I, the president of this Congress, and my American friends as members of the A. M. L. A., asked the General Secretary to organize, at that annual meeting in New York, a special section where the DP scholars of the Ukraine and Byelo-Ruthenia could present Marr's monstrosity to American linguists and expose the Soviet linguistics to scientific evaluation and hilarity here in America?

Summing up the reasons for the revocation of Marr's theory by Stalin himself, we are sure that the urgent need of immediate elimination of all ideological doctrines which could be used in a war against Soviet Moscow was the decisive factor. Soviet Moscow is hastily attempting to create a "new linguistic atmosphere" inside the Soviet Union among the satellite countries and outside the Soviet Union. This new "linguistic p246 atmosphere" must lessen the tension of the "fational opposition among the non‑Russian peoples" against Soviet Moscow.

In my opinion, the revocation is a pure propaganda measure in the ideological preparations for World War III, as to the "national problem," inside and outside the Soviet Union. Any science and liberal art in the Soviet Union is to serve this plan of world revolution.

The Western and American democracies did not use, in the last three years of the cold war, this most effective weapon, Marr's theory against Communism. The "Voice of America" and of "Free Europe" did not even know what was happening when Stalin repudiated Marr. This unused weapon against Communism is a shining example of the wisdom of the American experts in ideological warfare. They have orders not to provoke "nationalism" among Stalin's victims; these are the orders of the "planners" of United States foreign policy. . . .

The Fight Against Marr's Theory in the U. S. A. Before the Revocation and the Refusal of the A. M. L. A. to Participate in the Struggle for the Freedom of Linguistics Behind the Iron Curtain and in the Soviet Union

Just for the record, here are some facts which will supplement our previous information about the demand (March, 1950) of a group of American and DP scholars to the American Modern Language Association to give to the DP scholars from behind the Iron Curtain an opportunity to inform American scholars about Marr's theory and its application.

This demand was prompted by a paper on Contemporary Soviet Linguistics by B. C. Friedl, Miami University, given at the annual meeting of the A. M. L. A. in New York, 1948. The paper was biased and provoked such energetic criticism among the audience (A. Senn, R. Smal-Stocki, etc.) that Chairman Wellek, completely unaware of what was going on, simply "closed" the discussion. Hence the DP opponents desired, at the next annual meeting in New York (planned for 1950), to present to American scholars the whole Soviet linguistic theory and the facts of its application. In 1949 I tried to interest Mr. DeWitt Wallace of Reader's Digest in the Soviet linguistic theory. I proposed an article and was promptly refused. Early in 1950 the professors asked A. M. L. A. for a special conference of scholars on the topic "Marxism and Linguistics." I also wrote on behalf the DP scholars to Secretary W. R. Parker proposing to form a special section: "Leninism-Stalinism and Its Influences on Philology and Linguistics" with three papers: R. Smal-Stocki, former professor of Warsaw University, on "Marr's Linguistic Theory"; P. Kowaliw, former professor of the Soviet Universities of Kiev and Kharkiw, on "Application of Marr's Theory to Ukrainian"; and J. Stankiewich, formerly of the Ukrainian Masaryk University, Prague, president of the Byelo-Ruthenian Scientific Society, on "application of Marr's Theory to Byelo-Ruthenian." I informed Prof. W. R. Parker that the scholars from Europe feel it a moral duty to give their American colleagues a p247 report on what is happening under Communist rule. We, the DP scholars, felt it our moral duty to transfer our fight against Marr's theories from Europe to America and to strengthen the linguistic opposition inside the U. S. S. R. with the voices from the U. S. A. so that the Soviet scholars may not feel forgotten by us — and free American linguists.

On April 3, 1951, Prof. A. P. Coleman, formerly of Columbia University and presently president of Alliance College, received an answer (with copies to C. M. Purin, R. Smal-Stocki, R. H. Delano, M. Henshaw, A. Senn, P. W. Long) as follows:

"At the meeting of the Executive Council this past weekend I called attention to the fact that you and several other prominent members of the Association were proposing for our 1950 meeting a special 'Conference of Scholars' on the topic 'The Scholar and Marxism' or on some special aspect of this topic. Ordinarily a proposal for a conference would be submitted to our Program Committee in the autumn for almost inevitable approval, but this topic so clearly involved a broad question of MLA policy that I thought it essential for the Executive Council to make the decision. This decision, I must now inform you, was unfavorable to the proposal on the grounds that this topic was not of the kind that our programs have hitherto included or should hereafter include.

"There was no disposition on the part of any month by month of the Council to deny the importance of the topic or its very real pertinence for a large number of our members. But there are many other important topics, of real pertinence to the professional lives of American scholars, in the modern languages, which are nel outside the province of the MLA program. It is not as though you and your colleagues had no other forum for the discussion of this topic. And I think you will probably agree with the Council that there are far more appropriate places for such a cocoon.

"There is an additional consideration which did not enter into the Council's decision, but which would certainly have worried me as Secretary had their decision been otherwise. I know, as you must too, (1) that if we listed such a cocoon in our program you could never hold the altered to the required maximum of thirty-five and make the meeting what such conferences are supposed to be and (2) that the newspaper publicity which would inevitably be given this single part of an MLA program would give a most unfavorable impression of MLA purposes and activities.

"Regretfully yours,

William R. Parker Secretary"

For a quarter of a century philologists, linguists, are persecuted by a fantastic theory imposed on them by the Russian Communist dictatorship — but in the free U. S. A. the free American scholars refused to grant the DP scholars the right of free speech for a criticism of the Soviet linguistic theory! There are "far more appropriate places for such a p248 conference," M. L. A. fears "newspaper publicity," and the defense of the freedom of linguistics in the Soviet Union and behind the Iron Curtain would give "a most unfortunate impression of M. L. A. purposes and activities"! Besides, there was the false statement in the letter "that this topic was not of a kind that our programs have hitherto included or should hereafter include"; the truth is that such topic was included in 1948, the above-mentioned paper of B. C. Friedl at the program of the annual meeting of M. L. A.

This reply was for us, DP scholars, who fought for three decades for academic freedom against Russian Communism, a rather deep disappointment. Even here in the U. S. A. there are some forces which are attempting to close the mouth of the witnesses from behind the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union, depriving them of the right to speak to American scholars and through them to the American youth. I proposed to my colleagues a common action before the M. L. A. and in May I presented Prof. W. R. Parker the following petition:

"The Secretary of the M. L. A.

"Dear Prof. Parker:

"With reference to your announcement about Conferences of scholars at the 1950 meeting in New York, the undersigned members of M. L. A. petition you to allocate to us a room for a scholarly discussion upon the topic:

" 'The Influence of Leninism-Stalinism on Contemporary Philology in the Soviet Union.'

"Time: two hours

"Discussion leader: Dr. A. P. Coleman;

"Explanation of purpose: Leninism-Stalinism influences not only biology, music and current literary production in the Soviet Union, but in the first line, philology and linguistics. The scholarly world in the U. S. A. is not informed concerning these influences. It is our purpose to discuss:

"1) the Soviet linguistic theory and its effect on philology;

"2) the influence of Leninism-Stalinism on the literary production of all peoples of the Soviet Union for the last third of a century.

"Signatures:

Alfred Senn, University of Pennsylvania.
Anthony Salys, University of Pennsylvania.
Edmund Zawacki, University of Wisconsin.
Edward Micek, University of Texas.
Arthur P. Coleman, University of Texas.
William Dehorn, Marquette University.
Victor Hamm, Marquette University
John Pick, Marquette University.
Roman Smal-Stocki, Marquette University"

"Professor Parker has asked me to schedule the scholars' conferences for the meeting at the Statler in New York this coming December, and I shall be glad to put your group down for one. It would help us in arranging the schedule if you would cheese the time you prefer, and an alternative time — you can get an idea of the program as a whole from the tentative schedule printed in the Proceedings (PMLA, LXV, 1, 66‑68).

"Your topic sounds interesting, and should provide a stimulating meeting. However, we wonder whether it might not be better to confine it to item 1 in your explanation of purposes. Item 2 is so broad and your time will be so short, that you had better save it for another year. Furthermore, leakage of the topic, and in fact the words Leninism-Stalinism in your subject will bring unfortunate newspaper publicity. So at this stage, we hope that you will confine your discussion to the philology aspects of the question.

Sincerely yours,

John H. Fisher
Assistant Secretary"

Being requested by Secretary W. R. Parker on August 9, 1950, to act as consultant of the Editorial Committee on an article I immediately presented opinion and in the letter again asked Prof. Parker, now that Stalin had in June revoked Marr's theory, to allocate the DP scholars the necessary room and time; any them would suit us which was not in collision with the parallel annual meeting of the teachers of Slavic languages and I appealed to him not to close our mouths in the free U. S. A., when even in the Soviet Union a "linguistic discussion was permitted."

No reply. In December, 1950, the Program of the annual meeting was published and no room and time for the proposed conference was allocated. Therefore at the business meeting of the M. L. A. after the report of Mr. R. Parker I took the floor and, after reviewing the correspondence with him regarding the special discussion, I asked why we did not get a room for our meeting. Was Prof. R. Jacobson, as the chairman of Slavic Section for the annual meeting, 1950, consulted in this matter, was the treasurer Lyman Bradley, sentenced for contempt of Congress, consulted in this matter? Finally I made the motion that the board be instructed to allocate room and time at the next annual meeting in Detroit, 1951. The motion was seconded by Prof. Coleman.

Prof. Parker, replying to me, stated that how had happened apparently was a "misunderstanding" and I agreed to visit him the next day.

After two days I had an interview with Assistant Secretary Fisher, who informed me that my letter of August 16 to Prof. Parker was not in the files of the respective correspondence. I asked him to give me à written explanation of the whole case.

p250 That is the history of the DP's attempt to inform the American philologists and linguists about the Soviet linguistic theory to ask them to express their opinion in defense of the freedom of teaching and research behind the Iron Curtain.

The Russian Communist Party Lifts the Ban on the Formation of Purist Terminology in Russian

Stalin's revocation has preceded by a significant step. As the readers remember, purism in the Ukrainian and Byelo-Ruthenian language was everything, "sabotage, counterrevolution, nationalism, fascism," etc., etc. For purism thousands of journalists, teachers, and scholars were exiled. And now what happened? Time, the weekly news magazine, on March 27, 1950, printed a dispatch, dated Moscow March 16, which read as follows:

"The Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union is going to 'cleanse' Russian science and technology of unnecessary foreign words, it was announced today. The academy met yesterday, the announcement said, and heard Academician A. M. Terpigorev say: 'A scientific terminology cluttered with foreign words is intolerable. In most cases these foreign words can be substituted by Russian words.' Other speakers said a terminology of physics, chemistry, geology and biology closely connected with Socialist production must be created."

Academic A. M. Terpigorev, Vestnik Academii Nauk S. S. S. R., Nr. 8, August, 1950, published an article: "Problems of Scientific and Technical Terminology." There he informs the reader that

"the initiation of a Russian written technical terminology basically goes back to the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. . . . For a number of reasons, these terms were brought into being without sufficient consideration, and unfounded borrowings from foreign languages entered Russian technical terminology in a great flood. . . . In 1867 the Russian Technical Society decided to compile a parallel French-German-English-Russian Technical dictionary, with special attention to the need of creating a great number of Russian terms for the corresponding foreign equivalents. . . ."

This bourgeois work is now being continued by a special Committee on Technical Terminology and there we learn:

"Several scientific research branch establishments, industrial organizations, higher educational institutions, authors and editors are working with all their might to replace inadequate terms with others, to replace foreign terms with Russian equivalents, etc. . . . One of the shortcomings of terminology is that it is unnecessarily cluttered with borrowings and foreign terms. . . . The brilliant new works by Comrade Stalin 'On Marxism in Linguistics' . . . opening up a new era for all Soviet science, lead us of the action in the field of terminological work and arm us to overcome the mistakes and shortcomings of our work in this field."

p251 But that, of course, is only for Russian! Then the newly created purist Russian terminology will be again forced on all the non‑Russian languages to strengthen the previous Russification.

Now, Mr. Jacobson, what about your wisecracks on the puristic "Hausbackene Woerter, Machwerk, Duftige Woertchen" which will now be created in Russian?

6. The Russian Communist Party Line of the Stalinist Epoch in Linguistics

What is the present party line regarding linguistics and nationals, so closely merged with the nationality problem, after the revocation of Marr's linguistic theory? We learn the directives from the article of M. Kammari, "Outstanding Contribution to the Science of Marxism":⁠7

". . . In this work (Marxism and Problems of Linguistics) J. V. Stalin scientifically demonstrated that only under Socialism and socialist democracy can there be full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and their cultures. This work is a crushing blow to the policy of imperialist reaction and war, which aims at the subjugation of the peoples, cultures natural languages of other countries. It exposes the falsity of the racist, cosmopolitan theory of the superiority of the language of the Anglo-Saxon race and latter's right to dominate the world, a theory which services the Anglo-American policy of imperialist aggression and enslavement of other nations.

"J. V. Stalin showed that nations and national languages possess a great stability and tremendous power of resistance to the assimilation policy of the imperialists. This is borne out by the utter failure and defeat of the German, Turkish and Anglo-American attempts at assimilation pursued with the most ferocious means over the course of decades and centuries. The same fate awaits the present policy of the British and American assimilators, who are out for world domination and are endeavouring to force the English language upon all peoples . . . (p7).

"Discussing the future prospects of developments of nations and national cultures and languages, J. V. Stalin made a profound analysis of the way languages will develop after the victory of Socialism on a world scale, in distinction to the way they developed in preceding history, during the existence of antagonistic social formations. When socialism has triumphed throughout the world, when imperialism and national oppression will have been abolished, view the full equality and free development and cooperation of nations established, national languages will be in a position, on the basis of this cooperation, to enrich one another. 'Naturally' Stalin says, 'there can be no question in these conditions of the suppression and defeat of some languages, and the victory of others. We shall then have not two languages, one of which is suffering defeat and the other emerging from the struggle victorious, but hundreds of national languages, out of which, as a result of prolonged p252 economic, political and cultural cooperation of nations, there will first evolve common zonal languages, the most enriched and then the zonal lineages will merge into one common international language, which of course, will be neither German, Russian nor English but a new language which will have absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages.

"The cultural and lingual development of the peoples of the Soviet Union are quite voluntarily and without coercion choosing, and are in fact already using the Russian language as such a medium, while at the same time both this and all the other national languages being enriched in the process of cooperation among the peoples. J. V. Stalin points out that every national language is capable of making its contribution in the enrichment of the future world language. Indeed, only on that condition can that language replace the national languages, which will continue to exist for a long time side by side with it and enrich it, until all the treasures of national culture will have been merged into the common world culture of Communism, single in content and form, with a single and common language of all mankind."

This article of M. Kammari defines the current party line for the nationality and language fields based on Stalin's "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics," which caused a revolution in linguistics . . . and laid a solid foundation for a genuine scientific Marxist theory of language, according to the author.

Let us analyze the party slogans, let us unveil the party directives and sum up the principles and methods of the Stalinist era of Soviet linguistics that are applied in the current ideological war against the free world outside the Soviet Union:

a) Only in the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence do "full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and their cultures" exist;

b) Outside the sphere of the Soviet Union exists the "dialectical" antithesis: the sphere of Anglo-American imperial reaction with its "cosmopolitan theory of the superiority of the English-American race and language," aiming by "aggression" at the subjugation and enslavement "of the non-Anglo-American peoples, their languages, and cultures" at "world domination";

c) Russian Communism, the unselfish big brother, gained a great victory over selfish Anglo-American imperialism and its plans by eliminating the Anglo-Americans from their sphere of influence, and it upheld the "full equality and free cooperation" among all non‑Russian nations their languages and their cultures "inside the Soviet Union" and its sphere of influence), and saved them from Anglo-American aggression, subjugation, and enslavement";

d) The unselfish big brother's mission in the interest of the proletarian world revolution is not finished because Russian Communism feels entrusted with the world mission: to defend also the equality and liberty of all non-Anglo-American peoples, languages, and cultures outside the Soviet Union against British-American imperialism endeavoring "to force" the English language upon all peoples;

p253 e) Taking over the leadership of all non-Anglo-American peoples outside the Soviet Union against British-American imperialism, J. V. Stalin stimulates them by showing "that nations and national languages possesses great stability and tremendous power of resistance to the assimilation policy of the imperialist" and predicts to the "British and American assimilators, who are out for world domination and are endeavoring to force the English language upon all peoples," such an utter defeat as was suffered by the German, Turkish, and, to some extent, by the Anglo-American attempts "pursued with the most ferocious means over the course of decades and centuries."

f) Thus the world is divided into two camps with two programs: one is the camp of the "full equality and free cooperation among nations, string languages and cultures" under the leadership of Russian Communism and the "great Stalin, father of all peoples"; the other camp is the {prison of the non-Anglo-American nations" outside the Soviet Union under the dictatorship of the Anglo-Americans, the camp of "oppression, subjugation, and enslave" of the "non-Anglo-American nations, their cultures natural languages."

The Russian Communist camp pretends that it solved the nationality problem, not only in the Soviet Union but in their sphere of influence ("by full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and cultures"), and now opens the offensive to solve the nationality problem in the opposite camp under "Anglo-American dictatorship," in the prison of the non-Anglo-American nations, by imposing upon it "a crushing blow" through the ideas of equality and free co‑operation of these nations/. Soviet Moscow in the "interest of humanity, democracy, world revolution" must also impose its own formula for the solution of the nationality problem on the other camp, and must liberate from Anglo-American enslavement all the non-Anglo-American nationalities, for the Communist Parties of these nations have long awaited a just solution of their nationality problems.

The principles of the general line are clear. The method used is the old Russian pickpocket trick: a thief pursued in the streets by the robbed persons runs ahead of them vociferously calling, "Catch the thief!" So that he may divert suspicion from himself by posing as a persecutor of crime and criminals, and in the resulting turmoil to hide and to escape. Thus Russian Communism always "accuses" its opponents of intentions, plans, and deeds that they themselves are carrying through. These accusations have to serve as a smoke screen for the present Russian cultural imperialism that is imposed on 800 million people and that aims at world domination by holding up the Russian language as the "international language of the proletariat." Virtually the last obstacle in the way of this attempted world domination is the English-speaking world; hence the Soviet application of its usual smear method in accusing the Anglo-American of "forcing English" upon all peoples.

The aims of this propaganda method is also clear: first, to split the free world into two fighting camps in which all "freedom loving non-Anglo-American peoples" may actively oppose Anglo-American language and culture (above all, the ideas expressed in this language) by learning p254 Russian, as all Communist Parties propaganda it; second, to build up and to strengthen the prestige of Soviet Moscow amongst the non-Anglo-American colonial peoples (in Asia and Africa) as the "defender and protector of the freedom of peoples, their languages and cultures," and to induce them to open the gate for the march of the Russian "liberator."

Behind these aims and methods Russian Communism attempts to hide the really crushing defeat of its own nationality and language policy, which ended with the revocation of Marr's linguistic theory in June, 1950. The non‑Russian peoples, despite Communist attempts at genocide, finally defeated the Soviet effort to "change the superstructures of their languages" and to merge and fuse them by forced artificial means with the Russian language. Thus the Russian Communists certainly know that "nations and national languages possess a great stability and tremendous power of resistance to the assimilation policy of the imperialists." They know it after the experience of a quarter of a century. Now Russian propaganda "transforms" the defeat into a "Russian victory," which is also a crushing blow to the policy of Anglo-American "imperial reaction and war, which aims at the subjugation of the peoples, cultures, and languages of other countries!"

Thus, according to the new party line, Russian Communism not only scored victories in both the past and present battles for the liberty of all non-Anglo-American peoples of the world, their languages and cultures, but infallibly establishes, once again, the final aim of the evolution of nations natural languages, and the way to this goal in the Stalinist era of linguistics.

The unchangeable aim of the Russian Communists is the "merging of all national cultures into the common world culture of Communism, single in content and form with a single and common language for all mankind." We see that a common, but multilingual world culture cannot satisfy the Russian Communists: they insist on a single and common language for all mankind. Because any living language differentiates, the Russian Communists certainly assume that dictatorial measures shall stop the free life of the language on this level and preserve it unchanged "without left and right deviation." (A necessary prerequisite is that mankind stops thinking and sinks to the level of the present Russian Communist, into whose mind the party has instilled the Communist vicious circle of Marxist ideas.) If Latin, Greek, and Old Church Slavic do not change, why should the future Communist world language change, concludes the linguist Stalin, obsessed by this maniacal idée fixe of an unchangeable, common language, which will absorb all the living languages of the world, stop the anarchy of language production, and impose an everlasting language, controlled, planned, and regulated, of course, like all other mental activity in the Soviet Union. Here we see the very source of this tenet of Russian totalitarianism. As long as the idea of freedom is not eliminated from the sphere of language, the Communist dictatorship has no security since freedom is indivisible. Free, private enterprise in language would undermine the basis of the Russian dictatorship for liberty has its logic and chain reactions. Thus the Russian Communist idea of a world language differs basically from p255 all Western conceptions of world languages regarding its real motivation and final aim. The way to this last stage of human language development, toward a planned world language, leads through the intermediate phase, of our own time, of "zonal languages." As we see, Russian Communism has the zonal idea of UNESCO immediately incorporated into its propaganda and now dresses the Russian language, forced upon the non‑Russian peoples of the Communist sphere of influence, as a "zonal language" of 800 million people. Russian Communism proudly proclaims that its nationality and language policy (always conducted under the banner of "full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and their cultures" in the Soviet Union) climaxed in the "progressive" result: that "the peoples of the Soviet Union are quite voluntarily, and without any coercion, choosing and are, in fact, already using the Russian language" as a "zonal language," or as a "common medium of intercourse among nations." (We do not yet know clearly whether they choose it as a medium of intercourse among the nations of the Soviet Union, or among the nations of the world.) As may be presently observed, all Russian satellites in Europe and Asia have also chosen and are, in fact, already using Russian as their zonal language.

Thus, nearly half the world have already, "voluntarily and without coercion," chosen the language of the "freedom-loving" Russian Communist nation so that they might escape from the Anglo-American imperialist "aggression, assimilation, and enslavement" of their languages and cultures and might enjoy "full equality and free cooperation" under the Soviet banner. (Can there be any doubt, that, after the liberation of the non-Anglo-American peoples outside the Soviet Union from Anglo-American "subjugation, enslavement, denationalization" by victorious Russian Communism, they will immediately, "quite voluntarily and without coercion," choose Russian as their zonal language for the pursuit of their happiness?)

Russian Communism (anticipating some suspicions) pacifies the non-Anglo-American peoples and also the "progressive" Anglo-Americans by declaring that in the zonal process, as it was activated in the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence, "there can be no question . . . of the suppression and defeat of some languages and the victory of others," everything being "quite voluntarily" and in "full equality and free cooperation," and that Russian Communism will uphold these democratic principles and methods "when Socialism [Russian Communism] has triumphed throughout the world, when imperialism and national oppression will have been abolished everywhere [in the world outside the Soviet Union]."

Then, "after the victory of Socialism [Russian Communism] on a world scale" there will "first evolve common zonal languages," and "the zonal languages will merge into one common international language, which, of course, will be neither German, Russian, nor English, but a new language which will have absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages."

This Stalinist conception is illogical. If the thesis is true that "full p256 equality and free cooperation" of the zonal languages and cultures will lead to a merger of them into "a new common international language" (neither German, Russian, nor English), then "full equality and free cooperation of the peoples of the Soviet Union" should have led to a merger of their languages into a "new" zonal, not Russian, language — but not to the "quite voluntarily choosing" of Russian "The voluntarily choosing" of Russian means, in fact, the defeat of German, French, English, and Turkish, which were all used by some of the Soviet and satellite peoples as their mediums of intercourse in the cull sphere to which they historically belonged. Illogical also is the conception that the "full equality and free cooperation" realized in the Soviet Union contributed something to the enrichment of the Russian language by the non‑Russian languages; we have already seen how intolerant Russian purism was and is. The "full equality and free cooperation" resulted only in the one‑sided, forced Russification of the non‑Russian languages, and that is now called "enrichment." If the same "full equality and free cooperation" should be realized after the victory of Russian Communism, the world over, then all the other non‑Russian languages (zonal or national) expect a similar "enrichment," and the final emerging of Russian as the "language of the Communist victory," the world over, will be assured. And the Russian Communist Party, in the last few years, has officially propagated Russian as the world language of the proletariat. Thus, on the one hand, Russian Communism calls for the abandonment of the national languages for the coming "new" (Non‑Russian) world language; on the other hand, the same party agitates to have Russian accepted as the "world language of the proletariat."

Why does the new Stalinist language doctrine uphold the principle of the future new world language, introducing at the same time as the intermediate stage to it, the "already existing" Russian "voluntary" zonal language?

Both ideas, the idea of the future international world language as well as its lesser manifestation, the idea of the zonal language, are used by Russian Communism as weapons against the opposition of the non‑Russian peoples to the Russian zonal language. We will analyze the function of both ideas first in the Communist propaganda in the interior of the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence, and then later in the propaganda beyond the Communist borders.

In the domestic Communist indoctrination both ideas are used for undermining and killing the language feeling of the non-Russian peoples through the conception of the "common world culture of Communism, single in content and form, with a single common language of all mankind." The first stage, the Russian zonal language, is already realized. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism "scientifically" proved the inevitability of the realization of these conceptions to the younger generations of the non‑Russian peoples for the sake of stifling their opposition against the forced Russification. Why oppose the "progress" toward the single and common language of all mankind and its "last stage," the Russian zonal language, which has already been accepted voluntarily outside the Soviet Union you some 600 million people? You can suggest that the Communists p257 take a "contribution" from your mother tongue for the "enrichment" of the Russian zonal language, but immediately this is thrown out by the Russian purist as a profanation of the great language of Lenin and a desecration of the "classic heritage of the great Russian nation." The Russian Communist imperialism uses both ideas as a method for stimulating political passivity among the non‑Russian peoples and their "assimilation." The zonal idea elevates Russian to a master-race language over all non‑Russian languages.

Let me explain the point of view of the non‑Russian peoples on these matters. All non‑Russian peoples support the idea of zonal languages and also the necessity of a world medium of communication between the nations under the condition that it is their own business to choose in full democratic liberty for themselves a zonal language and a world language, which, in our opinion, can be one and the same language. The Russian dictatorship can, for some time, force the Russian language upon its victims, but, after Russia's fall, the free non‑Russian peoples will, in our opinion, voluntarily demand to belong to the English zonal and world language, as the language of the free democratic world. The present emigration of displaced persons will prepare its young generation for this aim. The Russian cultural imperialism will end, just as the German imperialism did. Unfortunately, the Russian émigrés are still unaware of what great detached service they do to their people by fostering this Russian cultural and political imperialism outside the Soviet Union. The émigrés of the non‑Russian peoples are convinced that the technocratic age in Europe and Asia will bring English-American as a zonal and world language into both continents, as the language of genuine equality and really free co‑operation among nations, their languages and their cultures. The Russian zonal language will disappear with the Russian Communist dictatorship as the medium of the dark age of Leninism and Stalinism; this is as certain as day follows night.

Both ideas, the conception of a future world language and several zonal languages, are also excellent weapons for Russian Communist propaganda outside the Soviet Union, giving the Russian Communist the necessary "progressive" halo. No government or political party has a similar program of a future world language; nor was any government so progressive as to recognize, as an already existing fact, the first "zonal language for 800 million people," which is actually the intermediate stage for the realization of the ultimate goal of a world language. Magnanimously, the Russians assure us that they foster an "international language, which will be neither German, Russian nor English, but a new language"; hence, who from the progressive English or German linguistic camps will dare to oppose this idea? Who dares to deny that the Russian nation on the way to this ideal has by "full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and their cultures" created the "Russian zonal language"?

Here we see the real aim of the Russian Communist propaganda. They use their foggy idea of the future world language to demand that the free world and the despised Anglo-Americans must "voluntarily" recognize the Russian language, forced upon non‑Russian peoples by p258 Russian bayonets, terror, and slave labor camps, voluntarily chosen zonal language that they must respect the Russian Communist sphere of influence as a Russian zonal monopoly sphere, and, finally, that they must keep out of it. Russian Communism demands the recognition of its cultural mare clausum, of a Russian closed shop, where only Russian must be used as a medium for intercourse among all non‑Russian peoples.⁠8

Meanwhile, as the Russian language is promoted to the rank of a zonal language, the development of the other zonal languages depends upon the time when Russian Communism will liberate the non-Anglo-American peoples from Anglo-American oppression, so that they may establish, beyond the Soviet Union, the conditions for the development of zonal languages, the "full equality and free cooperation among nations, their languages and their cultures." (Thus, among all languages, only Russian now ranks as a zonal language.)

Until that happens, Russian Communism must conduct its ideological war for the liberation of all non-Anglo-American peoples from Anglo-American oppression with full strength, and must demand an "open shop" (for the Russian language and its culture in all countries outside the Soviet Union, backed, of course, by all national Communist Parties which welcome Russian as the "World language of the proletariat."

Thus the whole party line and its strategy is clear. Russian Communist imperialism, having achieved, by the recognition of Russian as the zonal language, the virtual exclusion of Anglo-American from its sphere of influence, systematically slanders Anglo-American outside the Soviet Union as the language of capitalism, oppression, and enslavement, and systematically weakens the language feeling of Anglo-Americans by the concept of the future single international world language. By rallying to the Russian language, as "the language of the world revolution," all Communists and all subjugated colonial peoples everywhere, the Soviets will certainly have the strength to give the Americans a final battle, even on the soil of the Anglo-American language, where the American universities and colleges have actually voluntarily dedicated themselves to the spreading of the Russian zonal language. Then the Russian Communists hope that just as a "voluntarily" chosen Russian zonal align emerged among the nations of the Soviet Union, that the Russian language may also emerge, also voluntarily," as the world language. This idea is being now propagated.

p259 Thus, we see that the Stalinist language doctrine is an important weapon in the ideological war between Russian Communism and the free world. This language war reached the shores of America. We did not notice that the "Voice of America" is aware of what is going on. To defend the English-speaking world means to attack the nationality policy of Stalin; but the "Voice of America" is forbidden to do so, for this fosters "nationalism" among the non‑Russian peoples. The American public opinion may sleep calm, for the defense of the American nation, culture, and language on our Russian front rests in the experienced hands of R. Jacobson, H. Kohn, E. Simmons, and S. Yakobson.

Stalin's world war against the English language is in full swing. As long as there is not published a purged edition of the written heritage of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln the security of Stalin and Russia is in danger.

The Author's Notes:

1 "The Soviet Linguistic Controversy," translated from the Soviet Press by J. V. Murra, R. M. Hankin, Fred Holling, King's Crown Press, 1951.

2 Arakcheyevshchina (from the name of a high court and cabinet minister, 1769‑1834): "the domination of a crude militaristic spirit and savage arbitrariness . . ." (Alexandrov's Soviet Political Dictionary).

3 This is the best proof that the discussion was prearranged and scholars were compelled to take part in this "free" discussion.

4 Vulgarization — "an excessively simplified presentation of an idea, political concept, or principle, distorting its substance."

8 The North American Newspaper Alliance reported October 24, 1951: Following sensational recent escapes of Czechs to the West, the Communist Prague regime has outlawed the teaching of English and other Western tongues in Czechoslovakia, except for "politically mature" people. This, in Russian parlance, would mean trusted Communist Party members. In commenting on the restrictive measures Hospodar, a Prague magazine, speculated that there is no point to teach potential "class enemies" those "capitalist" languages. A proviso of the new regulation forbids the sale of dictionaries, grammars, and other textbooks for the learning of those outlawed languages. Private tuition in English or French also becomes a criminal offense.

Thayer's Notes:

b So far, so good, actually. There remains no consensus as to the origin of the Goths, and the Scandinavian theory, dominant for a time, has recently given way somewhat to the possibility that the Goths did in fact come at some point from what is now Poland or maybe even western Ukraine. What follows, however — Georgians, Gog and Magog — remains ridiculous.

p219 Chapter VIII The Revocation of Marr's Linguistic Theory by Stalin, June, 1950