Suchergebnisse

This article addresses some theoretical problems which arise in a recent article by Joseph Schull on ideology and Soviet-type societies. I argue that the conceptualizations of Marxism-Leninism, ideology, and discourse offered by Schull are unlikely to enhance the study of Soviet ideological practices significantly because Schull's approach is both too essentialist and too general. Schull treats these concepts as unities reducible through proper definition. I argue that they are better understood as problematics which, in the first two cases, encompass a wide variety of forms and practices; and, in the third, a variety of methods and approaches. Since the study of Marxism-Leninism or ideology, like anything else, is driven by questions, problems, hypotheses, etc., I suggest that it is unhelpful to engage in a priori generalizations about method.

This article employs a semiotic approach to investigate the meaning of 'Marxism-Leninism' with a view to clarifying our understanding of this term. Contrary to conventional interpretations it demonstrates that 'Marxism-Leninism' is an empty signifier which is subject to definition on a contemporary basis by the CPSU itself. However, it also demonstrates that 'Marxism-Leninism' is the central element in a mechanism of control which bears all the hallmarks of a classic linguistic double bind. It therefore concludes that while 'Marxism-Leninism' is referentially open to re-definition it is connotatively attached to the practices of the CPSU. It is both fixed and not fixed in meaning.The resulting analysis leads to a critique of terms which are conventionally taken for granted by Sovietologists and introduces a new methodological approach to the study of 'Marxism-Leninism'.