The languages I'm aware of (European ones) are all set up around the structure of talking about things, nouns, verbs, etc, and tenses that modify those things over time. Suzy and John go to the movies. Beans tasted good yesterday. Examples like that. But the concept of a "thing" is a non-dialectical framing, it's trying to take a snapshot of something away from the historical context it exists in, instead of looking at the totality.
For example, we could talk about a book, but the book is more than the paper and ink that it is printed on. There's the author, the machine that printed it, the publishing company, the trees the paper was gathered from, the ink, the language, the method of writing language, the readers who read the book, the whole history of fiction or non-fiction and the social context that creates those methods. The list goes on. Outside of the context of those other things that make up the totality of the book, the true nature of the book becomes difficult to understand. It would be incredibly difficult or even impossible to understand a book outside of any social context at all.
In a way we become alienated from the true properties of the book, the context of the book, not just in the sense of alienation during sale of commodities, but in the sense that by trying to compartmentalize it into a "thing" that exists here and now, we lose connection with what the totality of that "thing" was, is, and will be, and the other things that cause that thing to exist as it is now that are connected to it.
Even writing about dialectical thinking is difficult and hard to make sense of because all of our framing and words and concepts we use are all about trying to put things into tidy little still-frame boxes that can be easily understood at a glance. I think this unironically contributes to the wall of text leftism memes because we have to take time to describe the context of the situation outside of the normal framing and word usage and teach and entire new way of thinking.
I think this is why we end up with a lot of "Is China socialist?" type questions and answers that just look at whether the thing right now fits some abstract definition. It's trying to put the thing into a nice little box that we can understand. And we do that naturally by just talking, by the way we naturally form our words and concepts that are guided by the system of language that we just happen to use.
What I'm trying to say is that the very languages we use predisposes people to think a certain way and to play with concepts in a certain way, and that way happens to align with a non-dialectical thought process and framing. Socialists have to fight an uphill battle to communicate what is often an entirely novel concept using a language that wasn't meant to frame it that way.
There's def some truth here, and some value to analysing language to understand hegemony and power. Gramsci in particular is good with this analysis. As a linguist, his deep understanding of the functions and origins of language, overlaid with the history of the spread of the Florentine dialect during the Risorgimento, forms one of the pillars of his formulation of hegemony.
However, I am of the opinion, as an emphasis if not a rule, that if we are doing epistemology, we are not doing praxis. I'm not convinced that the dynamics you describe are inherent to language itself. I think they are cultural, political, moral framings rather than a limitation of this or that specific language. We don't have to learn German to understand Marx. The limitations imposed on language and thought are a much larger project that exist in education, mass media, cultural production.
The problem with consciousness isnt a problem of language, but that the culture, morals, and politics, the superstructure, conceives of things too abstractly: "The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society." We can imagine the individual, and we can imagine society, but we can't see how individuals create society or how individualism is a social relation/construction.
The problem with abstraction, is a lack of concreteness. Lenin wrote in 1903, "Truth is always concrete." You are absolutely correct to say that the problem with consciousness is a problem of abstraction. People conceive of "things" as idealized Platonic forms that are static and immutable. The conception of things literally resists formulating a theory of change, "that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively."
In practice, this looks like making generalizations and then treating those generalizations as truth. Practical Marxism means going into the social conditions of workers and the oppressed, organizing people to discuss, articulate, and critique their own experiences, organizing more deeply on the basis of those newly understood conditions, and proving the power of shared experiences and active solidarity. The contradictions are right there, people know them because it is our lives. But because we lack a way of thinking about our experiences without using abstract categories, comparing ourselves to an ideal, or within the context of social hierarchies, all social contradictions are projected on the individual -- itself a historical social relation.
I'd recommend reviewing Theses on Feuerbach and the German Ideology, deep diving into Gramsci (I can get you a reading list on exactly this topic so you can speed run), revisiting Lenin not for his particular conclusions but the way he develops his case for political action, he was a master at political concreteness. I'm also a particular fan of Paulo Friere's pedagogy, which IMO is the most direct method to developing this kind of concreteness in criticism, and the best explanation of how and why to be concrete.
Good post, my only criticism is the emphasis on language, which becomes an idealized abstraction. By uncritically placing the burden on the linguistics, as a category removed from the people who speak it and use it to convey meaning, you are reproducing the same errors you are trying identify.