By HC116, April 10, 2005
"We deny not only that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable political criterion, but also that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable artistic criterion; each class in every class society has its own political and artistic criteria." --Mao Zedong
"Our literature, which stands with both feet firmly planted on a materialist basis, cannot be hostile to romanticism, but it must be a romanticism of a new type, revolutionary romanticism." --Andrei Zhdanov ("Soviet Literature - The Richest in Ideas, the Most Advanced Literature," speech, 1934)
"We must deal in abstractions, too--revolutionary romanticism is a good thing-- but it is not good if there are no [objective] measures (for giving it practical effect)." --Mao Zedong
Mao put forth the approach of combining revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism, which is the artistic expression of the revolutionary ideals and spirit of the exploited and oppressed, and articulated the material basis of the method of integrating revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism. Failing to see the method of integrating revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism in a conscious dialectical unity as a development of the Marxist- Leninist literary and art line, certain crypto- Trotskyists calling themselves "Communist" in the united $tates cryptically consider Soviet socialism realism under Stalin to have been wrong overall. Allegedly, revolutionary romanticism was not present at all in Soviet socialist realism in its most advanced expression. Fully keeping with the tradition of the most deceitful anti-Stalin hacks, the crypto-Trotskyists malign socialist realism as just a lot of portraits and statues extolling revolutionaries in a lifeless, static and uninspiring way despite all the evidence to the contrary and Chinese Maoists' praising many socialist realist works from the Soviet Union under Stalin.
The crypto-Trotskyists simultaneously believe in the incoherent theory that, while literature and art as a whole are not supra-class, do not transcend class, do not lie outside classes and class struggle, literature and art still have supra-class aspects. Mao explicitly said that the artistic criterion (that is, artistic elements in art and the artistic criterion in literary and art criticism) was class-influenced, too, not just the political criterion, and that this relationship between the artistic criterion and class was true for all of class society. But the crypto-Trotskyists believe that artistic criteria have dynamics that transcend class, and that the artistic criterion in literary and art criticism transcends class. To give this "theory" a patina of authority, the crypto-Trotskyists appropriate Mao's literary line on revolutionary romanticism in order to say that the attractiveness of certain forms of art is innate in humyns, that revolutionary romanticism, rather than socialist realism, is closer to what is innate in humyns, and that revolutionary artists should strive to satisfy this natural desire for certain forms of art. Not content with exaggerating the distinction between revolutionary romanticism and socialist realism, the crypto- Trotskyists totally pervert Mao as saying that there is a theory of humyn nature when it comes to aesthetics when that obviously is not what Mao meant by revolutionary romanticism. Revolutionary romanticism is a category specific to the class struggle, and further, it is most consistently practiced and upheld by the proletariat. Far from embodying a "form" of art that is discovered in some innate humyn aesthetics, revolutionary romanticism is infused with class-specific content. Revolutionary romanticism has nothing to do with the theory of humyn nature. Artistic criteria in class (and patriarchal) society is influenced by the dynamics of struggle in class (and patriarchal) society. It is not just political criteria that are class-influenced, but also artistic criteria. The "form" of art may not itself express an articulated ideology, but choice of "form" is class-influenced and manifests a class content in the context of class society.
Purported humyn nature and the artistic criterion
MIM does not focus on the artistic criterion (or artistic criteria, the object of the artistic criterion in literary and art criticism) while doing culture reviews of books, movies, music, etc., created in imperialist countries, and there is a certain reason for this. As much as the bourgeoisie would like to pretend otherwise, downplaying the importance of politics and the political interpretation of literature and art, political criteria are always more principal than artistic criteria. When it comes to the largely utterly reactionary filth coming out of Hollywood, MIM has more important things to discuss than how enjoyable a particular movie is; although, enjoyability does have a bearing on the popularity of a reactionary movie. As Mao explained in Talks, "The more reactionary their content and the higher their artistic quality, the more poisonous they are to the people, and the more necessary it is to reject them." However, "[i]n the present in imperialist society, it is the content that is principal, precisely because of the worship of contentless art that dominates in the bourgeois culture."(1) After the seizure of power, and when revolutionary politics are more widely and deeply disseminated, artistic criteria are more important than before, though political criteria are still principle and decisive. It is possible to have a revolutionary movie that nobody enjoys watching. Even then, politics are still important because we have to question politically how moviemakers could take a revolutionary script and turn it into a final movie that is so unenjoyable, uninspiring, and even repulsive.
So, MIM puts the political criterion and politics first, and in the main MIM has done this without any ambiguity. That does not mean artistic criteria are not in any way political, despite the separate category of "political criteria," and it is here that the theory of humyn nature does so much damage. The theory of humyn nature allows reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries to say incorrectly, that maybe revolutionary artists need not--and by implication, perhaps should not-- strive to create socialist realist works. The theory of humyn nature could say that realism, for instance, conflicts with humyn nature, the humyns are inherently capable of overcoming subjectivism and practicing realism.
What the theory of humyn nature in the anti-realist literary and art context is really saying in some ways is that revolutionary artists should tail the population's preferences for certain forms and styles of art, rather than lead the population to appreciate and value the styles that are conducive to revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary transformation. Here, we have opportunism expressed in the literary line, pandering to the population majority. Another reason arises why MIM does not tail the population's preferences for certain styles of art, and this is that MIM would have to compete in the entertainment dynamic in highly parasitic imperialist countries. This is in addition to the reason that much of the art popularly considered to be of high artistic quality in decadent imperialist countries is difficult to create with few resources.
The "reality" genre is obviously popular in the united $tates, but that does not mean revolutionaries should necessarily envision revolutionary reality TV shows in socialist society. In fact, the whole so-called reality genre, if it truly is its own category of art, may have to be banned for reasons relating to individualism and leisure-time oppression. On the surface, the so-called reality genre does not connote a particular ideology and seems to only encapsulate various ideologies, but it is political nonetheless, and this politics has a class as well as gender character. The reality "style" has an ideological content and represents a particular "creative mood that is alien to the masses of the people and the proletariat." Socialist realism is are more a method, than a style, but particular styles are more conducive to the portrayal of reality in its revolutionary develpment. An artistic form or style is not simply a container in which opposing ideologies can equally express themselves. Although the styles that are most conducive to the representation of reality in its revolutionary development are not fixed forever, styles are not always equivalent for a given purpose, articulated ideologically. The subjectivists contradict themselves on this matter, saying that it is wrong to oppose particular artistic styles. But if a style is merely a container for any ideology, then what is the harm in opposing particular artistic styles? The subjectivists answer this question from the anti-communist Liberal viewpoint. The more refined crypto-liberals argue that discouraging or otherwise restricting artistic style hampers the proliferation of socialist realism in society. But this is a wrong argument. In actuality, socialist realism does not seek to restrict artistic style in a general and arbitrary way, but to promote the development of a particular kind of variety of style in literature and art, a particular sort of blossom in literature and art. The notion that artistic style or the mode of artistic creation stands above criticism, the notion that individuality in artistic style is inviolable, takes for granted the ahistorical and typically vague category of "style" and derives from ruling-class aestheticism plus subjectivism.
Maoists support realism in revolutionary art for political reasons, reasons that are contingent on the class and patriarchal society context in which they live. It does not uphold socialist realism for reasons relating to humyn nature or aesthetics purportedly having its own, supra-class and supra-gender dynamics. It is readily apparent here that it is not MIM which is dogmatists, but the various proponents of, and adherents to, the theory of humyn nature in aesthetics. The theory of humyn nature justifies a static and effectively arbitrary approach to artistic style, whereas Maoists' upholding socialist realism for socially and historically contingent political reasons recognizes that the attainment of "skill" in creating socialist realist works is an ongoing process--like the development of revolutionary consciousness--and also a matter of ideological struggle. That is, the proliferation of socialist realism is a process that involves social struggle, and socialism realism guides the development of literature and art in a dynamic way in accordance with the development of revolutionary consciousness. Alexander Fadeyev, Maxim Gorky, Zhao Shuli, and other great socialist realist authors, did not become socialist realists overnight; nor were they born with the socialist realist method. While socialist realism is a goal to strive for, it is not that non-socialist realist works are necessarily bad and wrong overall. Neither it is the case that talent in socialist realism can reach a maximum level before society reaches communism. Revolutionary consciousness is continuously developing and advancing; socialist realist literature and art are consciously developing and advancing in their most advanced expression.
Works of literature and art are criticized in terms of their potentiality and in comparison with other works, which is why MIM does not mind pointing out that certain Hollywood movies are better than others even though the "good" Hollywood movies contain many bad aspects even politically. This does not mean abandoning revolutionary realism as a goal. Nor does MIM's praising particular non- socialist realist works mean counterposing the integration of revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism, with socialist realism, in a way that actually opposes revolutionary realism generally and paves the way for the propagation of forms, styles, modes and moods, in literature and art, that hamper the development of revolutionary consciousness and impede the advancement of society on the revolutionary road.
Socialist realism does not overly restrict revolutionary artists' different individual styles. On the other hand, socialist realism does shape style in art in a broad way and sweeping way, like revolutionary transformation generally, and does shape individual style to the extent that applying socialist realism to literature and art has a bearing on individual style. Marxists are not "human nature" pragmatists in art who believe that there can only be one style, that which conforms to humyn nature; nor are Marxists Liberals who respect "individuality" in the use of particular styles, in literature and art, in an overly abstract way that eschews struggle and views certain aspects of art as transcending class. Not even individual style transcends class in class society, which is not the same thing as saying that there should be only one individual style. One can acknowledge the inevitable and necessary multiplicity of individual style, while recognizing that individual style is still class- influenced as well as gender-influenced.
There is no art for its own sake; nor is there any aspect of art for its own sake. Every aspect of art is politically influenced whether the artist knows it or not. It is not just that nothing exists in a vacuum dialectically and absolutely speaking, but also that every aspect of art involves choices that are limited in a society organized on the basis of the allocation of labor time and leisure time. Even a seemingly innocuous decision to use a particular medium or type of paint is socio-historically determined unless there is only one type of medium, etc., possible in the world. To put it more concretely, the decision to make a movie with special effects, rather than write a poem, is indeed political in an imperialist-dominated world with such an uneven distribution of value-- despite all bourgeois and pseudo-Marxist effeteness to the contrary. The amount of resources to allocate for the creation of art is also political and not determined by innate humyn nature. Class and gender struggle happen in literature and art, to the extent it exists--and each class supports the creation of art in the first place to serve its own needs--but society's advance to communism does not depend on a certain level of artistic creation.
The reactionary theory of humyn nature in society is wrong in every sense. It naturalizes aspects of art that should be openly subject to class struggle; of course, the class struggle will go in these aspects of art despite this obscuration, but it is to the benefit of the oppressors that the class struggle goes on without the proletariat's knowledge. The reactionary theory of humyn nature in aesthetics forecloses the class struggle in certain aspects of art and surrenders the struggle in art to the oppressors. There is an inherent tendency to depoliticize art altogether because, to a certain limited extent, the description of particular aspects of art as being "political" and other aspects of art as being "artistic" is in fact arbitrary when both sets of criteria are politically influenced.
The different aspects of art are not politically influenced in the exact same way or to the same degree. Art is subordinate to politics, but politics does not impact art in a completely uniform or homogenous way. To mechanical materialists, this can be confusing, but it is true. This is especially the case with the outwardly political criterion, the more or less obvious political take- home message, where the class struggle is extremely intense. In other words, the style of an artistic work may at particular moments not be as important as the same work's more or less explicit politics. The relative and changing importance and emphases of the different aspects of art can make it appear-- to the short- sighted--that particular aspects of art are not political. But that is a metaphysic attitude and ignores that principal contradictions can form within the sphere of literature and art, too.
The fact that the political criterion is always more principal than the artistic criterion (revolutionary art made in an unappealing way is always preferable to reactionary made in an appealing way), and the fact that the political criterion is typically more principal than the artistic criterion in class, gender and nation struggles, can leave the impression that the artistic criterion is not class-influenced, etc. But such an impression, ignoring the complicated way in which politics expresses itself, and the different forms in which politics expresses itself, is wrong. It is deeply wrong, and it is as wrong as saying that the only contradiction is the principal contradiction. In actuality, both artistic and political criteria are class-influenced and involved in the class struggle. Socialist realism is itself an acknowledgment of this relationship between the class struggle and both the artistic and political criteria. Socialist realism seeks to reflect reality in its concrete, dynamic revolutionary development and from the point of view of the proletariat. The deceptive notion that socialist realism is just an appreciation of statues extolling Stalin, or just workers in their everyday routine of toil, is deeply wrongheaded, reactionary, and anti-communist--as is the notion that socialist realism conflicts with humyn nature, or the theory of humyn nature applied to aesthetics.
Socialist realism often is not intuitive to the majority of the population in a given country, and thanks to the centuries-long influence of humynist and precapitalist theories of aesthetics, this is true even in Third World countries, where the revolutionary forces in the world are concentrated. Indeed, the immense numerical unpopularity of realism, not to mention socialist realism, in the whole world suggests to the narrow empiricist that socialist realism is opposed to humyn nature. But what's wrong here is the narrow empiricism, not socialist realism.
The top five movies in the united $tates as of April 8, 2005, are "Sahara," "Sin City," "Fever Pitch," "Guess Who," and "Beauty Shop" (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/), are all anti- realist. The displacement of realism in the movie culture has nothing to do with humyn nature. It has to be explained in political terms and from the standpoint of the world proletariat. The history of literature and art in revolutionary China shows that not even satire, as enjoyable as it is to decadents in imperialist countries, is permanent as a prominent fixture in literature and art. Whole "genres" and sweeping styles can cease to be dominant. Socialist realism can come to dominate literary and artistic creation as a goal to aspire to until the old oppressive relations are completely destroyed. The transition from idealist and subjectivist ways of portraying reality, complementing the political standpoint of the oppressors, to socialist realism is determined not by humyn nature, but by revolution and counter-revolution.
In oppressive society, all aspects of art are influenced, or otherwise determined in relation to, struggles against oppression. The Marxist theory of classes and the ruling classes' theory of humyn nature are diametrically opposed. Marxists do not get to pick and choose when to apply the theory of humyn nature in art. No aspect of art stands above or transcends class in class society. There is no true theory of humyn nature in the sense that humyn nature in oppressive society transcends class, gender, and nation. The only "humyn nature" in class society is the concrete reality that all individuals participate in the class system--and in different ways at that. There is no humyn nature in the abstract in a society with group oppression. Humyns' supposedly natural preference for particular artistic forms are in reality socio-historically contingent--preferences for artistic forms can be changed dramatically through cultural transformation.
The supposed supra-class and otherwise supra-social dynamics of art
The rice-shoots are showing in rows of green, the cuckoo is calling, it's time for transplanting, but it's lagging behind, being slack with itself, complacently singing the same old song. (Folk song from Chienko, Szechuan)
The implications of the theory of humyn nature in the context of art have not been fully articulated, and it is necessary to dig a little bit deeper into this question. One idea that the crypto- Trotskyist so-called Communists are expounding is the notion that art has its own "dynamics"-- aesthetics. The use of the word "dynamics" is puzzling because in fact these dynamics are related back to humyn nature, which is supposedly static, or unchanging, and universal among humyns. Art is its own category of thing and points to different things at different times (in an often honorific way, to denote what is "true" art), but if the dynamics of art are not related to the dynamics of class or patriarchal society, what are these supposed dynamics peculiar to art and not class- influenced? Up and down the line, the notion that art in oppressive society has its own dynamics, which transcend struggles against oppression and exert themselves always, smacks of bourgeois literary and art criticism, and is reminiscent of the approach of assessing artistic works on the basis of preconceived standards of what constitutes art--however culturally specific these standards admitted to by the proponents of the theory of humyn nature in aesthetics.
In Maoist literary and art criticism, there are two categories of criteria: the political and the artistic. But even the artistic criterion is subordinated to politics. What constitutes works of high artistic quality can change profoundly with the course of struggle. Art that is comparatively good overall today in imperialist countries can, on the basis of the artistic criterion alone (for example, if the artistic style represents a particular reactionary mood), be reactionary in another context after the seizure of power and when the struggle against the new bourgeoisie is more intense. The artistic criterion in the creation and criticism of art is rooted in objective practice, not timeless abstract aesthetic ideals, even those that are culturally specific. Movies that are largely satirical while at the same time "schizophrenic" in outlook, for example, have increasingly little place in a society in which the proletariat is struggling to defend socialist realism against pathetic reactionary attempts to discredit socialist realism as being just simple-minded propaganda in caricature.
There is no eternal artistic criterion. Only a theory of humyn nature could prove the permanence of a particular artistic criterion, but the manifestation of all preferences for particular artistic forms is, to reiterate, dependent on the social and historical context, as well as the stage of social struggle. No imaginary humyn nature can guarantee the dominance of a particular artistic criterion. Even the creativeness, imaginativeness and impressiveness supposedly found in all so-called good art depends on the historical context. Some things classified as art are infuriatingly lacking in any imaginativeness, but are considered to be of high artistic quality by prominent art critics. If the proletariat needs imaginativeness in art, which it does in a very particular way--it needs revolutionary romanticism to serve its needs as a revolutionary class trying to transform society-- it is not because humyn nature dictates the need for imaginativeness. The revolutionary struggle dictates the need for imaginativeness in art in the specific form of revolutionary romanticism, which is infused with revolutionary content. There is no art for its own sake in oppressive society. Neither is there art in its own right to the extent that connotes art's having dynamics in isolation from the different struggles against group oppression.
The question arises is imaginativeness peculiar to revolutionary romanticism. It is not. The ruling classes desire the population to imagine and embrace reaction and counter-revolution. Does that mean imaginativeness in art corresponds to humyn nature? No, imaginativeness in art in oppressive society does not conform to humyn nature, but to each groups' different uses for imaginativeness in art. At the same time, art totally lacking in imaginativeness can serve a function, too, for the oppressors, so it is not as if there were an unchanging aesthetic humyn nature bounded only by oppressive society, in other words, every humyn in class society appreciating imaginative art. Within oppressive society, the artistic criterion is wildly diverse, and this diversity cannot be adequately explained by reference to deviations from artistic forms allegedly corresponding to some innate humyn nature. To put it more starkly, art absolutely does not have a life of its own apart from concrete humyns. Art is created only by concrete humyns, who are participating in particular social relations in oppressive society. Art is not created by humyns just expressing their humyn nature in a modified form called "individuality."
Even when art is subordinated to the revolutionary creation of the new society, rather than the destruction of the old, the creation of the new happens only in the context of the destruction of the old and the struggle against the politics of the old society. The creation of the new should not be divorced from the destruction of the old. This is another way of saying that there is no art for its own sake--or for the sake of creating something that is consonant with humyn nature. The imagination and idealization of the new is always a rebellion against the old as long as remnants of the old society exist or as long as the new bourgeoisie poses a threat to the new. And the new bourgeoisie always poses a threat as long as there are pre- communist relations in society.
The revisionists upholding the theory of humyn nature in aesthetics at this point, if they have not done so already, will insist that art cannot be reduced to politics, must not be simply equated with politics. In doing so, they confuse reflection with reduction. The relations of oppressive society do not determine the creation of art in a direct and perfect way; rather, capitalism's impact on art is interfered with and modified--in part precisely because capitalist ideology is not a pure reflection of capitalist relations. Neither is art simply a combination of elements of the old and elements of the new. Art may arise in part from specific ideas not firmly based in either the old society or the new. However, none of this means that art does not necessarily reflect the class struggle. Art is not always politics in its pure form, but it always reflects politics in at least a partial way. This has nothing to do with the dogmatic line that art and politics are exactly equivalent, that the only desirable art is proletarian art reflecting politics in its most pure and systematic form.
The division of labor is such that the creation of art tends to participate in the prevailing struggles of the day. So, art does typically contain elements of the old and the new. Even art that deliberately tries to be rooted in unstructured "reality," outright fantasy, or all sorts of whim-worship, or metaphysical mechanicalness and rigidity, finds its origin in the old (capitalist and patriarchal) society; the aversion to reality is a reflection of the subjectivist outlook, and subjectivism is oppressor ideology. (Subjectivism sometimes appears to conflict with particular ruling-class ideologies and can give distorted expression to progressive sentiments--by "militating" against truth in general, subjectivism can temporarily disturb particular ruling-class so-called truths-- but subjectivism serves the ruling classes overall. Postmodernism and other subjectivist trends are to the detriment of the proletariat in the long run.)
In fact, the struggle against subjectivism, which often purports to have its basis in neither the old nor the new, raises the need for realism as a way of combating the subjectivist tendency. Although individual style does not transcend struggle and criticism, realism does not connote a particular individual style. Individual style and themes in socialist realist art change in accordance with the needs of the revolution--at the same time socialist realism envisions the new and what does not yet exist, but can and will exist. Socialist realism reflects reality in its real revolutionary development. Socialist realism reflects reality as it is changing--and contributes to that change. The development of socialist realism is itself a struggle and involves change. Many artists, some even considered socialist realists overall, have been hostile to the idea that subjectivism applies to no aspect of art, thinking that individual style, due to illusory "individuality" (which of course is sacrosanct and inviolable), transcends social struggle and reaction.
Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom
To every vine its own kind of gourd, to every tree its own kind of blossom, to every age its own kind of songs, to every class its own way of speaking. (Folk song from Shanghai)
There is no aspect of art, motivated by an imaginary humyn nature, that transcends struggle. There is important to understand and grasp, otherwise subjectivism and its manifestation in the bourgeois ideology of Liberalism will exert themselves, first in "individual" style and then in increasingly more aspects of art.
There are those who still treat the policy in revolutionary China of "letting a hundred flowers blossom, a hundred schools of thought contend" as a liberal policy and praise the Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom policy for that bourgeois reason, forgetting that the policy in literature and art was clearly intended to proliferate a specifically socialist culture in a variety of artistic styles. Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom absolutely does not mean spreading subjectivism on the matter of individual style or any other aspect of art. Creativity in a variety of individual styles does not translate into subjectivism on which individual styles to use, but rather allows socialist culture to be expressed in a diversity of individual and other styles. Much less does creativity in a variety of styles imply conforming artistic style to some imaginary abstract humyn nature, whose supposed inevitable expression is modified only by the local culture. There is a need for a diversity of style, but every class has "its own kind of blossom," consistent with its "own way of speaking."
Subjectivism and Liberalism, and also anti-realism, are all characteristic of the bourgeoisie's outlook on art in relation to the portrayal and imaginative depiction of society. There is a place for art, in capitalist society, that critically appraises reality, but which does not necessarily put forth a communist vision. Unlike many "Marxists" with a dogmatic view of proletarian art, MIM does not write off art that is not avowedly and explicitly communist. However, socialist realism is a method to strive for in the artistic depiction of society. Socialist realism, which envisions communist society, certainly does not preclude the critique of capitalist society, and there is nothing wrong with art that envisions communist society and at the same time (inevitably) criticizes capitalist society. There is no opposition between socialist realism and humyn nature. On the contrary, there is an agreement between socialist realism and the concrete, not abstract, timeless and universal, humyn nature of the proletariat. The decision to practice a method other than socialist realism in literature and art must carefully considered when the bourgeoisie or the new bourgeoisie still threaten to use art to restore capitalism. Every aspect of art in oppressive society involves a choice, and that choice has a political motivation and content--and therefore effect, however small or imperceptible on the surface.
No aspect of art transcends social struggle, and no theory of humyn nature can justify in the eyes of the proletariat subjectivism with regard to any aspect of art. The proletariat seeks to disseminate the scientific method in all aspects of art. Any tolerance of subjectivism in any aspect of art is tactical only and transient. No aspect of art in oppressive society can be divorced from social struggle whether the artist knows it or not. The artist must acknowledge this reality if they are claiming to serve the exploited and oppressed, or they will be inadvertently serving the ruling classes. Art that pretends to serve humynity as a whole or pupports to indulge the natural inclinations and preferences of imaginary abstract humyn nature is in reality serving the ruling classes by perpetuating anti-social humynism.
Even art that portrays nature, rather than society--a flower or a mountain, rather than a persyn building communist society and defeating the old society-- can contribute to the scientific method and the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which strives to practice the scientific method consistently. Such art(ists) should not pretend to serve humynity in general as if there were such a thing in the abstract in oppressive society. In class or patriarchal society, and in revolutionary society, there is no art for its own sake or art for humynity's sake-- precisely because in oppressive society group oppression is so pervasive, and there is no such thing as humynity in the abstract in any real sense yet.
The relationship between the artistic criterion and communist concrete abstract humynity
If the hills are so high that they reach to the sky we'll make rice-fields among the clouds; and the red flags in our terraced fields will make all the sky glow red. (Folk song from Chiunglai, Szechuan)
In a society in which all group oppression and the threat of group oppression have been eliminated, it is possible to speak of abstract humynity in that particular context, but it is a socially determined and concrete abstract humynity, not a prior, repressed natural abstract humynity that is now free to express itself. The exponents of the theory of humyn nature in aesthetics take advantage of the fact of this emergent reality--communist concrete abstract humynity--to say that abstract humynity is in operation in class society and that therefore there is art for its own sake or for the sake of humynity generally. The idea is that the future concrete abstract humynity arising in a society without group oppression penetrates into the society that still has group oppression. This proposition appears dialectical on the surface but in fact is wholly metaphysical in suggesting that proletarian art's imaginative depiction of the new society happens in isolation from the struggle against the old. (The definition of the new society after the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat includes society at that point, but also includes the communist stage to which society is advancing. "New society" is not static and does not imply only the present, but is dynamic and connotes the potential society of the future.)
It is true that the old society does not mirror all the conditions of the new society (even in a distorted way), otherwise it would be easier to be utopian. It is also true that at some point in the future, social struggle may cease to be principle in the development of literature and art. However, the imaginative depiction of the new always rebels against the old. The very act of idealizing and imagining the new displaces and contradicts the old theoretically and practically. The construction of the new and the destruction of the old are inseparable. The new is often a rupture with the old, but the new transforms the old and constantly militates against the old. The new does not simply supersede the old in the sense of mere replacement, but suppresses it in a deep-going way.
The struggle against the oppressive and reactionary old always heightens the potential for the communist concrete abstract humynity, brings this concrete abstract humynity closer in a potential way. This development happens in both the political and artistic criteria (or aspects) of art. So, it is unscientific and in fact meaningless to suggest that abstract humynity operates only in the artistic criterion, or "art- for-its-own-right" aesthetics. If abstract humynity has any impact on art, its impact is thorough and influences both the artistic and political criteria. The emergence of communist concrete abstract humynity is not confined to aesthetics, but also appears in politics.
But in oppressive society, communist concrete abstract humynity does not express itself in the form of "abstract humynity," but suggests itself in the forms of social struggle. Moreover--and this is important for opposing Liberalism--social struggle is not reducible to a homogenous principle of repressed abstract humynity (or "individuality") trying to free itself. Instead, social struggle flows from concrete contradictions in oppressive society. These contradictions propel the imaginative depiction of the new in proletarian art and are inseparable from this imaginativeness.
There is no way to completely divorce art from the old and the new taken as a whole. To the extent imaginativeness gravitates away from the concrete or a fictional likeness thereof, it is subjectivist (even if this deviation happens unconsciously--the unconscious, by the way, figures prominently in some bourgeois aesthetic theories, but should not detract from the socialist realist method as a goal for revolutionary artists/critics and revolutionaries more generally). It is subjectivist and can be either rectified or mitigated. Significantly, Mao pointed out that, while there is a need for revolutionary romanticism, romanticism ought to conform to reality and should portray what is possible, not what is known to be impossible on the basis of practice and investigation. Revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism, far from being diametrically opposed, are deeply interrelated, at times indistinguishable. The portrayal of reality in its revolutionary development is often simultaneously the portrayal of the wished-for future, wished for by the proletariat. Revolutionary romanticism is an idealization of an emergent objective reality. As such, it emanates not mainly from individuals' subjectivity, but from objective reality itself. Objective reality in oppressive society is never divorced from social struggle. By its very presence, revolutionary romanticism interacts with social struggle and does not transcend social struggle.
The road to communist concrete abstract humynity, which is not humyn nature in the pure abstract, is filled with social struggle and marked with social struggle, to end all group oppression. The terraced fields leading to this concrete abstract humynity glow red. Revolution creates the potential for communist humynity, and is propelled further forward by what it creates, just as building one step of a ladder may be a condition for building a higher step--to reach a goal that is achievable in objective reality. But this process is not guided by the humyn nature of the ruling classes' theory of humyn nature, so neither is art in any aspect guided by abstract humyn nature in oppressive society.
Notes:
1. MC12, "Editor's Introduction," http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/mt13intro.htm l
2. MIM Theory, no. 13, "Culture in Revolution"