[Marxism] Re: 7. Re: Re: America No. 1? (Edward Crawford); & Cyrilliac vs latin (J.Laine)

hari.kumar at sympatico.ca hari.kumar at sympatico.ca
Sun Mar 6 12:25:36 MST 2005


(1) Re: Re: America No. 1? (Edward Crawford) (Edward Crawford)
&
on (2) Re: Cyrillic vs. Latin alphabet (Joonas Laine)

Edward: 
(1) Thanks. 
I of course had recognised that your statement was an expression of a 'belief' - hence my question. 
I think the point is made. It is importnat to reference such matters in my rather narrow-minded view of the world. 

For in reality, the whole thrust that I have seen in VIL is contrary to what you described. See:
Volume 19: "Liberals & Democrats on the Lnaguage Question"; pp 354- 357.
Volume 20: several articles are relevant here. 
I think the strongest ones include:
"Is a compulsory Official langauge needed?" pp 71-73;
["the "arguments" of the Black Hundreds are curt of course... the attitudes of the lbierals is much more 'cultured' and 'refined'... they advocate an obligatory official language..  What we do not want is the element of coercion.. We do not want to have peoples driven into paradise with a cudgel... That is why Rusian Marxists say that there must be no compulsory official language..." 

& also Voluem 20:
"Corupting workers with Refined nationalism"; pp 289-291.

There may be elsewhere references that would it not be nice to have a unified langauge. I ahve missed those in my reading. I do not doubt that your reading is broader. But the thrust of most of VIL's work is ton in that direction as far as I can see. 

Even in his more 'theoretical' & 'abstract' musings - he would appear to be unclear of the drift in any such direction of benefit in a single language. Examine his musings on, say Hegel [Conspectus of lectures on the philosophy of history"; where he writes a quotation:
"Language is richer among peoples in an undeveloped primitive state- language becomes poorer with the advance of civilisation and the development of grammar" - alongside which he writes simply: " ?"

There is on HOAC - a discussion for the last years in one form or another, on the methodology of 'belief' and of history. 
I submit that it is not rigidity that makes me ask for a reference. 

[If the MIA does not have these texts, I am happy (Addressed to you & or David Walters) to scan them for the MIA. Please inform off-list if needed.]

The matter of methodology crops up again with your assertions regarding later coercion. Again - perhaps you could reference these? 

Again in my admittedly slight reading, in Yaacov Ro'i: "Islam in the SOviet Union from WW 11 to Perestroika"; Columbia U. Press N.York; 2000; & in "The Soviet Middle East - A Communist Model for Development"; J.A.Newth & Alec Nove; Praeger Publishers N.York; 1966 - this flavour does not come across until the Khruschevite era. 

What does come across, is tht MUCH later in the period of socialism (ie circa 1945) there was move to making higher school tuition in Russian, much more widespread - if not acutally mandatory. 
As to whether this was 'coecion' - may be disputed. What is quite clear however, is that over this time peirod, the CPSU(B) was issuing statements on religion in ALL the regional non-Russian languages in the Soviet East. 

To Joonas:
Many thanks. Both citations are helpful. 

Hari Kumar. 








More information about the Marxism mailing list