The paper considers discourse analysis instruments for investigation of political communications. The research is based upon example of communist movement discourse. Ideological conflicts within communist organizations appeal to the legacy of theorists of the past century. Participants in disputes identify themselves with certain trends and oppose their positions to those of their opponents. However, scientific analysis of these divisions is hampered by the lack of an adequate methodological apparatus. Postmodern versions of discourse analysis dissolve material relations into language games. Critical approaches fix grammatical structures but do not trace the connection between the text and the class positions of its producers. Historiographical narratives select quotations according to a pre-established scheme. These limitations give rise to the need for a different tool.

The article develops materialist discourse analysis as a method for identifying power interests in symbolic space. The theoretical basis consists of W. Lippmann's propositions on stereotypes, G. Lasswell's categories of political communication, and M. Foucault's procedures for discourse control. The analytical scheme divides discourse into two dimensions: vertical and horizontal. The vertical dimension is broken down into deep, middle, and surface levels. The horizontal dimension includes the center and the periphery. The center is determined by the referential core of discourse.

The scientific novelty of materialistic discourse analysis lies in considering discourse not as a language game, but as a socially conditioned objectified interest that reproduces relations of domination. The vertical dimension shows the transformation of interests into political formulas. The horizontal dimension shows the mechanism of competition for the meanings of words, the use of external, internal, and social control procedures. The referential core of discourse allows us to track this struggle for meaning.

The effectiveness of the method has been tested on V. I. Lenin's 1923 text “Better Less, But Better.” The reference core of the discourse is the provisions of Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. The procedure made it possible to identify the points of convergence between the two discourses, their differences, and Lenin's specific innovations. The latter include an emphasis on the quality of personnel, the problem of retaining power in an agrarian country, and criticism of the growing bureaucracy.

The proposed method helps to analyze political texts and reconstruct ideological discourses and political formulas.

 materialist discourse analysis, ideology, stereotype, political doctrine, myth, unification, diversification, communist discourse, Lenin, Marx

1. Barthes R. Mythologies. Trans. from Frю, introd., comm. by S. Zenkin. 5^th ed. Moscow, Akadem. proekt, 2019: 351 (in Russ.).
2. Bourdieu P. On the Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language. Otechestvennye zapiski, 2005: 2(23): 1–11. Accessed 01.12.2025. URL: https://strana-oz.ru/2005/2/o-proizvodstve-i-vosproizvodstve-legitimnogo-yazyka (in Russ.).
3. Bourdieu P. Prakticheskii smysl [The Logic of Practice]. St. Petersburg, Aletheia, 2001: ??? (in Russ.). EDN: QOGTMH
4. Bourdieu P. Sotsiologiya sotsialnogo prostranstva [Sociology of Social Space]. Trans. from Fr. and ed. by N. A. Shmatko). Moscow, IES; St. Petersburg, Aletheia, 2007: 288 (in Russ.). EDN: QOECDF.
5. Ilyenkov E. V. Dialectical Logic. In Collected Works. Vol. 4. Moscow, Kanon+ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, 2023: 464 (in Russ.). EDN: HTNZFD.
6. Lasswell H. Yazyk vlasti [The Language of Power]. Politicheskaya lingvistika, 2006: 20: 264–279 (in Russ.). EDN: JVKKXV.
7. Lenin V. I. Luchshe menshe, da luchshe [Better Fewer, But Better]. In Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Collected Works]. 5^th ed. Vol. 45. Moscow, Politizdat, 1970: 389–406 (in Russ.).
8. Lenin V. I. Materializm i empiriokrititsizm. Kriticheskiye zametki ob odnoy reaktsionnoy filosofii [Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy]. In Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Collected Works]. 5^th ed. Vol. 18. Moscow, Politizdat, 1968: 7–384 (in Russ.).
9. Lippmann W. The Public Opinion. Transl. from Eng. by E. Abaeva. Moscow, AST, 2023: 448 (in Russ.).
10. Lukes S. Vlast': Radikal'nyy vzglyad [Power: A Radical View]. Trans. from Eng. by A. I. Kyrlezhev. Moscow, Gu – VSHE, 2010: 240 (in Russ.). EDN: QOLAAN.
11. Marx K. Kritika Gotskoy programmy [Critique of the Gotha Programme]. In Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniia [Works]. 2^nd ed. Vol. 19. Moscow, Gospolitizdat, 1961: 9–32 (in Russ.).
12. Pipes R. Russkaya revolyutsiya. Ch. 1 [The Russian Revolution. Part 1]. Authorized trans. from Eng. by M. D. Timenchik. Moscow, ROSSPEN, 1994: 396 (in Russ.).
13. Foucault M. Poryadok diskursa [The Order of Discourse]. In Volya k istine: po tu storonu znaniya, vlasti i seksual'nosti [The Will to Truth: Beyond Knowledge, Power, and Sexuality]. Coll. works. Moscow, Kastal, 1996: 47–97 (in Russ.).
14. Ellul J. Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. Trans. from Fre. by G. Sharikova. St. Petersburg, Aletheia, 2023: 410 (in Russ.).
15. Beetz J., Herzog B., Maesse J. Studying Ideology and Discourse as Knowledge, Power and Material Practices. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2021: 16: 2: 103–106. DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2021.1895180.
16. Berelson B. Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, IL, The Free Press, 1952: 220.
17. Canagarajah S. Reconsidering Material Conditions in Language Politics: A Revised Agenda for Resistance. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2020: 19: 3: 101–114. DOI: 10.35360/njes.580.
18. Eagleton T. The Illusions of Postmodernism. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1996: 147.
19. Fairclough N. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London, New York, Routledge, 2003: 270.
20. Fairclough N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1992: 259.
21. Fairclough N. Language and Power. 3^rd ed. London, New York, Routledge, 2015: 263.
22. Geras N. Post-Marxism? New Left Review, 1987: 163: 40–82.
23. Gross P. R., Levitt N. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994: 314.
24. Laclau E., Mouffe C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. 2^nd ed. London, New York, Verso, 2001: 197.
25. Material Discourse – Materialist Analysis: Approaches in Discourse Studies. Ed. by J. Beetz, V. Schwab. Lanham, Lexington Books, 2017: 167.
26. Musílek K., Jamie K., Learmonth M. ‘Money Probably Has Something to Do with My Life’: Discourse and Materiality in the Working Lives of Start-Up Entrepreneurs. Work, Employment and Society, 2024: 38: 5: 1285–1306. DOI: 10.1177/09500170231185033.
27. Sokal A., Bricmont J. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York, Picador USA, 1998: 300.
28. Van Dijk T. A. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008: 267.
29. Wodak R., Nowak P. et al. »Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter!«: Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1990: 367.
30. Wood E. M. Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995: 300.