Introduction
The Bolshevik Party under Lenin and Trotsky guaranteed the maximum freedom of artistic expression, while striving to win over the writers and artists to the standpoint of Communism. This tradition lasted for a few years after Lenin’s death. On July 1, 1925 the Central Committee passed a resolution on the policy of the Party towards literature, which says among other things: “Communist criticism must ban any tone of commandism. It will have a profound educational result only if it proceeds on the basis of its ideological superiority. It must resolutely ban any pretentious communist conceitedness and smug self-satisfaction. It must learn…” Furthermore, the Party declares itself in favour of the free emulation of literary schools, “any other decision would necessarily be bureaucratic”. The Party refuses to grant to any group whatsoever a monopoly of publication rights. “To confer such a monopoly even to the most proletarian literature because of its ideas would be to kill all literature.” It moreover proclaims the necessity to “put an end to all arbitrary and incompetent administrative interference in literature”. At the same time the Party calls on writers to break with aristocratic prejudices and place at the disposal of the masses the acquisitions of the great masters.” (Quoted in Victor Serge, Littérature et Révolution, pp. 50–1.)
However, the acceptance of freedom did not signify an abstentionist position in relation to harmful trends and erroneous theories, such as the so-called theory of “proletarian culture”, against which Trotsky polemicised in Literature and Revolution.
The idea of “proletarian art” originated not in Russia but in France, where in 1913 Marcel Martinet published the article entitled “L’Art Proletarien” in the magazine L’Effort Libre. Even before this the old anarchist Charles Albert had already invented the term “proletarian art”. The origins of this concept lie therefore not in Marxism but in anarchism, and suffers from all the crude and confused one-sidedness characteristic of anarchist thought in general. The primitive revolutionism that argues that the working class must destroy all vestiges of the old class society may appeal to immature minds but lacks any real scientific basis. On the contrary, as Trotsky explains, in order to transform society it is necessary that the working class should first master all the knowledge, art, science and administrative skills of the old society, should thoroughly digest it in order to overcome and surpass it.
Martinet takes as his starting point the celebrated phrase of Marx: “The emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves.” But these words of Marx-profoundly true words-by no means implied that the working class in its struggle for socialism should dispense with the cultural weapons which had been forged by the bourgeoisie. Far from it. Marx and Engels themselves (is it necessary to explain?) were not members of the working class but came from the bourgeois intelligentsia. They broke decisively from their class and placed themselves on the standpoint of the proletariat. Their writings penetrated the essence of the capitalist system and the nature of the exploitation of the working class. In order to do this, they based themselves on the most advanced thought of the greatest thinkers produced by class society: German classical philosophy, English classical economics and French utopian socialism. It is true that socialism bases itself on the enormous revolutionary creativity of the working class. This can and does work miracles. But even the greatest miracles of the proletariat could never have thrown up the three volumes of Capital. To ask for such a thing would be, as the Spanish say, to expect pears from an elm-tree.
Under the guise of adoring the proletariat, the anarchists in fact only display a petit-bourgeois contempt for the proletariat. They deny its ability to understand “complicated” ideas and theories. The ridiculous pose that raises ignorance to the status of a “proletarian” medal and worships backwardness and the lack of culture has nothing in common with a truly proletarian mentality or with Marxism, which bases itself on the most advanced elements in the class, not the most backward. After all, the working class has a face and the working class has a backside. It is the sad fate of the anarchists to eternally contemplate the rear parts of the working class. By appealing to the most backward prejudices of the class, they will never help to raise it to the level of the tasks posed by history.
The movement for “proletarian culture” sprang up during the harsh years of the Civil War. After 1920 the members of these organisations numbered about 400,000. They published 15 different journals. In one way this was a positive development. But in general it suffered from the immaturity that characterised many aspects of the thinking of the period. Whole new layers were aroused by the October revolution from their old habits of somnolence and passivity. Minds were opened to new ideas. A spirit of experimentation predominated. Not all these experiments, however, were successful. Mixed up with a few precious specks of gold was a rather large amount of dross. To separate out the one from the other was a necessary task. But to determine what was genuinely of value and to establish new artistic criteria in consonance with the new social and cultural reality established by the Revolution, what was needed was experience and free debate. The idea that art and literature could somehow be dragooned and disciplined was entirely alien to the young workers’ state with its spirit of revolutionary democracy. Lenin and particularly Trotsky tried to convince by argument, but it never crossed their mind that the Party should impose its will by force or coercion of any kind.
Russia at the time of the Revolution was an illiterate country. The great majority of the population were peasants, most of whom could neither read nor write. Even among town workers the rate of illiteracy was 30 per cent. The main efforts of the Bolsheviks were therefore aimed at the basic tasks of abolishing illiteracy and backwardness. In this context it was necessary for the proletariat to absorb and assimilate the best of the culture of the old society. The shrill propaganda of the supporters of so-called Proletarian Culture (Proletkult) who demanded a radical break with the past and the creation of an entirely new “proletarian” culture owing little or nothing to the bourgeois past was not helpful and introduced confusion where clarity was most necessary.
The leading proponent of “proletarian culture” was Bogdanov, the former ultra-left Bolshevik who had broken with Lenin after the defeat of the 1905 revolution, not only on political questions but also on Marxist philosophy. Lenin’s position, reflected in the quote reproduced above, was identical with Trotsky’s: namely, that the working class must master all that is best in bourgeois culture in order to raise itself to the level of the task of transforming society along socialist lines. Along the way, a new socialist culture will emerge. But by this time, the proletariat will have ceased to exist as a class. The theory of proletarian culture thus lacks any real scientific basis.
Trotsky, with his brilliant style and masterly use of the dialectic, tackled the Soviet artists and writers on their own terrain and answered them in their own language. In this way, he consolidated the authority of the Bolsheviks and the October revolution and helped to attract the best of the artists and writers to the revolutionary cause. Bureaucratic bullying and hectoring did not enter into it, much less administrative violence.
Alan Woods
From ‘Marxism and art: introduction to Trotsky’s writings on Art and Culture’, Marxist.com
14 December 2000