immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the base. That is
why the sphere of action of language, which embraces all spheres of man’s
activity, is far broader and more varied than the sphere of action of the
superstructure. More, it is practically unlimited.^17The aim of this thesis is once again to distinguish language from the
superstructure. And it might be thought that, since Stalin erects the architectural
metaphor into a dogma of Marxism, if language is not an integral part of the
superstructure, it is because it forms part of the base, which is why it is
directly linked to production. Here, Stalin would be anticipating certain
developments in post-Marxism, in Negri and Hardt or Marazzi, for whom
communication has become a productive force, so that language is directly
involved in production – i.e. in the base (to the extent that post-Marxism
retains the old contrast).^18 But Stalin’s aim is different: it is to situate language
somewhere else – an elsewhere that is not the social structure of a class-
divided society, but a direct anthropological relationship between humanity
and nature in the form of production. Hence the apparent contradiction which
leads Stalin to say that language is not affected by a change in the mode of
production and that it ‘immediate and directly’ reflects changes in production:
we pass from a historically imperturbable language to one that is hysterically
affected by technological change. Obviously, the problem posed by this vulgar
technologism lies in the concept of ‘reflection’ (‘language reflects changes in
production’), which avoids Marr’s sociological determinism only immediately
to succumb to a form of determinism that is probably worse.
The fourth thesis asserts that language has no class character. What is interesting
here is the reason adduced in defence of the thesis:
The second mistake of these comrades is that they conceive the opposing
interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the fierce class struggles
between them, as meaning the disintegration of society, as a break of all ties
between the hostile classes. They believe that, since society has split and
there is no longer a single society, but only classes, a common language of
society, an national language, is unnecessary. If society is split and there is
no longer a common national language, what remains? There remain classes80 • Chapter Four
(^17) Stalin 1973, pp. 411–12.
(^18) See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri 2000 and Marazzi 1997.