Marxism–Leninism as Discourse: The Politics of the Empty Signifier and the Double Bind

Abstract

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’.

Soviet ideological discourse and Perestroika

“…I am not the first to regard Soviet ideology as a discourse. See for example Bourmeyster, 1983;Seriot, 1992;Schull, 1992;Urban, 1987;Urban and McClure, 1983;Walker, 1989 and1992. 9.…”

Stalinism as a Civilization: New Perspectives on Communist Regimes

“…From this perspective, ideology is no longer seen as a simple belief system or a psychological phenomenon, but as a societal structure, consisting of powerful conventions that legitimate action (Schull, 1992). Still, these studies restricted their focus to the language of the Marxist–Leninist communist elite and did not look at how ideology was translated and implemented into everyday practice and discourse in Soviet society (compare Urban and McClure, 1983; Walker, 1989, 1995; Schull, 1992; Robinson, 1995a).…”

“…Discourse theory emphasizes how our conceptions of our world are ordered as binary and hierarchical states of opposition – ‘antagonisms’ (see, for example, Howarth, 1995). Marxist–Leninism was indeed rather flexible as to its content (Walker, 1989), but basic to the discourse that derived from it was the opposition to ‘capitalism’ – a label that linked all and every form of non-compliance to the geopolitical enemy in the West, identifying a threatening ‘enemy within’.…”