Lenin’s Ideas on Party Principle of Literature & Art
January 2008
Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou from School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China,Beijing
In a series of articles and books Lenin published, including Party Organization and Party Literature published in 1905, Lenin discussed that Party principle also includes the Party principle on literature and art. Lenin’s idea on Party principle is an inheritance and development of the Marxist thought on Party principle.
Party principle is a requirement and measurement of the ideological contents of a literary and art work.
In the development history of literature and art, Bacon was the first one to put forward Party principle. Bacon, the British materialist esthetician in the 17th century began to use the term Party principle in his philosophical and esthetic books to mean the tendency of a writer or an artist to this or than clique.
After him, the Russian revolutionary democrats used the concept more frequently. Belinskiy once wrote, “Belonging to no clan in one’s own conceit is just like being able to see clearly the absolute truth in one’s own conceit. It seems that all the other people see the same absolute truth with the glasses of bias and stupidity.”
(Collected Works of Belinskiy, Russian edition, p. 9, quoted from Lenin and the Issues on the Russian Literature, 1st edition, p. 150, Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1982)
Lenn pointed out the Party attribute of the litterateurs and artists. Chernyshevsky, the Russian revolutionary democrat, believed both litterateurs and philosophers were “representatives of some political Party”. He understood Party principle from the angle of political parties. In Germany in the middle 19th century, the revolutionary democratic movements were running high and the revolutionary democrats required the writers and artists to have a clear Party principle and political stance. At the end of 1848, Feuerbach said, “We are now in an era which does not resemble the previous one in Athens when a law was issued to require every one to must decide to take which side at times of riots; we are now in an era when every one, even if he has hardly any Party principle in his own conceit or a party member simply in theory, does not act in violation of his own ideas and wills; we are now in an era when political interests devour all and political events always make us nervous or run high.”
(Selected Readings from Feuerbach’s Philosophical Literatures, 1st edition, vol. 2, p. 50) Heine held similar views to those held by Feuerbach.
In 1854, he said, “We always write to praise or object something or some ideas, to support or combat some parties”, “dispirited non-party personage”, “are always deceitful” (Collected Works of Heine, Russian edition, vol.9, p. 92-95) Feuerbach, Heine, Herwegh and the other democratic writers were good at sticking to their Party principle in political struggles. They soaked their literary and art works with Party principle. Herwegh was known for his poem Party, and nothing more. However, what they advocated was the democratic Party principle instead of the communist Party principle.
Before Marxism, Marx and Engels had held that the publications and literary works in their era had something to do with parties. In 1842, Marx said, “Without parties there is no development, without demarcation there is no progress” (Collected Works of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, 1st Chinese edition, vol.1, p. 129), thus they associated publications and the development and progress of literature and art with party struggles.
At the time, both Marx and Engels believed that revolutionary democrats had to follow a very clear stance of Party principle in political struggles. Engels called the Young Hegelians “the parties” of “the Republican Party”. Marx also called the litterateurs and artists to devote themselves to party fights, which was mainly manifested in his comments on poet Freiligrath. The German poet Freiligrath advocated art for art’s sake from 1838 to the early 1840s. In his poem From Spain, he wrote, “The minaret of the poet, high above parties”. Both Marx and Engels held that the revolutionary democratic litterateurs had no right to “overtop ‘parties and partisan struggles’” like Freiligrath, but had to go deep into the partisan struggles in their own era. Here the Party principle mentioned by Marx and Engels also referred to the Party principle of democracy, not communism. After the birth of Marxism, Marx and Engels put forward, in clear-cut terms, the issue of the communist Party principle in literary and art works. When criticizing “true socialism” writers in 1847, Engels pointed out those true socialist writers, though verbally called themselves “communist” writers, did not represent the Party of the German communists.
Neither did the German Communist Party recognize such writers to be its representatives in the literati, nor did these writers represent the interests of the German Communist Party. It then required the communist party’s “representatives in the literati” to protect Party interests and guard Party principles. Engels set the same requirement on the literary and art works with the communist Party principle. Marx and Engels’ theories of communist Party principle once had great positive influence on Freiligrath’s poems. In The Purpose of Faith, a collection of poems published by Freiligrath in 1844, he frankly admitted that he had descended from “the minaret of the poet” to “the partisan loft”. After that, he wrote a great number of excellent poems. Till the 1850s, due to the failure of the revolution in 1848, the crackdown of the Communist League, and the life in exile, also due to his failure to thoroughly understand the scientific communist ideas, Freiligrath wavered. In his letter to Freiligrath, Marx said that the Party took pride in having him one of its members, asking Freiligrath to leave behind all personal interests and take the side of the Party. Freiligrath replied to Marx and defended his vacillation with the excuse of the crackdown of the Communist League. In his reply to Freiligrath, Marx wrote that the crackdown of the Communist League did not free Freiligrath from his responsibilities for the working class’s communist party in the great sense of history. That is to say, even if the proletariat was unable to maintain its organization due to the persecution of the reactionary government, the communist poets and litterateurs had to maintain their communist ideas and principles. Nevertheless, Freiligrath ignored Marx’s advice and began to drift apart from Marx and rupture with revolution, returning back to the “minaret of the poet”. In one of his letters to Marx in 1860, he wrote, “My inwardness, like that of all the other poets, needs freedom! The Party is also a cage. Even the songs for the Party are more melodious if sung outside the cage than sung inside.” In fact, his “minaret of the poet” was a cage which confined him and deprived him of his ability to “sing”. From the relationship between Marx and Freiligrath, we can see that Marx initially advocated sticking to the Democratic Party principle, then the literary and artistic communist Party principle. From the above analysis, the theory of the communist Party principle in literature and art was brought forth by Marx and Engels.
The communist Party principle of literature and art was systematically illustrated and comprehensively expounded by Lenin. Speaking of Party principle, Lenin held that it had three main meanings, i.e., firstly, the idealist or materialist tendency in terms of philosophical epistemology; secondly, political parties’ Party principle; and thirdly the proletarian parties’ Party principle, i.e., the communist Party principle. Party principle herein meant the above third one. In Party Organization and Party Literature, Lenin concentrated on the principle of party publications. Did the Party principle Lenin mentioned in the above same article include the Party principle of literature and art? It is believed that publications of literary and artistic works shall be included in the category of general publications; on the other hand, in Party Organization and Party Literature, Lenin combined Party principle with literature and art when elaborating it. For example, he directly mentioned “aesthetics”, “novels”, “pictures” and “stage art”.
In Party Organization and Party Literature, the principle of party publications brought forth by Lenin covered below five aspects:
Firstly, for the socialist proletariat, literature was not a private undertaking having nothing to do with the common cause of the proletariat, but it should be related to the common cause of the proletariat.
Lenin said, “What is this principle of party literature? It is not simply that, for the socialist proletariat, literature cannot be a means of enriching individuals or groups: it cannot, in fact, be an individual undertaking, independent of the common cause of the proletariat.” (Collected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p. 663)
The relations between the writers who wrote articles for Party publications and were also Party members and the Party sympathizers were mentioned here. Lenin asked the writers who wrote articles for Party newspapers, especially those writers who were at the same time Party members, to hold views consistent with those of the Party’s and to never violate them. That Lenin stressed the Party principle of Party publications, Party member writers and Party sympathizers is closely connected to the historical stage the then Russian revolution was in, the then social environment and the fights within the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. The Russian revolution in 1905 was a bourgeois democratic revolution with an extensive social foundation. Apart from a small group of royalists, all of the other social forces engaged themselves in it with different class goals, providing their supports or showing sympathy for the revolution, making the revolution seem like a “civil” one at the very beginning. To cover its class interests and goals, the bourgeoisie tried to disguise itself as the “civil” political representative, and advocated the “non-party” principle going beyond classes and Party principle. For the proletariat and its political party, they took part in the bourgeois democratic revolution firstly to achieve the minimum party program, which may clear the way for developing capitalism, but it’s not the final goal. The proletariat and its political party aimed to thoroughly topple feudal autocracy, eliminate the residue of serfdom, carry the democratic revolution forward to the end, and to create conditions for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and achieving the socialist revolution. Hence the proletariat had to maintain its political independence in the bourgeois democratic revolution, and the proletarian political party must keep a clear Party principle, criticize the “non-party” idea, and resist the erosion to it by anarchy and individualism. The above bourgeois ideas somewhat influenced the then Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. The Mensheviks served as the tail of the bourgeoisie in politics, abandoned the fight against the bourgeois influence in terms of ideology, and failed to supervise their official magazines and newspapers and their Party member writers. Targeting at the situation, Lenin pointed out, “As we have already shown, the non-Party principle is the product—or, if you will, the expression—of the bourgeois character of our revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot help inclining towards the non-Party principle, for the absence of parties among those who are fighting for the liberation of bourgeois society implies that no fresh struggle will arise against this bourgeois society itself.” (Ibid, p. 675)
Russia saw “non-party democratism, non-p arty strike-ism, non-party revolutionism” which actually spoke for the bourgeois interests. The “non-party” principle became “a fashionable slogan” then (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p675). In view of the phenomenon, Lenin pointed out sharply, “The non-Party principle is a bourgeois idea. The Party principle is a socialist idea.” “That is why the party of the class-conscious proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party, has always quite rightly combated the non-Party principle, and has worked steadily to establish a closely-knit, socialist workers’ party consistent in its principles.” (Ibid, p672) The fight between the Party principle and the non-Party principle was fierce in the then Russian literary and art circles. Gorky wrote Song of the Stormy Petrel and a number of other revolutionary literary and art works, in which he expressed his distinct non-Party principle. However, some bourgeois litterateurs and artists and the Mensheviks advocated that literature and art were an individual undertaking and opposed the Party principle of literature and art. Decadence led by Andreev lavished praise on individualism, mysticism and hedonism. They had one thing in common, i.e., claiming that literature and art was the “non-party” individual undertaking. As early as in 1894, leader of Messenger from the North, the decadent critic Sharansky wrote in Party Hostility and Struggles, “Political struggles make the social ideologies floating on the surface”, “in the flames of struggles, in the flames of party prejudice and intentions, the concept citizen culture has been distorted”. Another critic published What Are the Differences between Art and Party Idea?, in which he wrote, “We are against the partisan art, i.e., a kind of art which creates works for the victory of some fighting parties, political parties, literary parties or some other parties.” Advocates of the non-Party principle cursed, “Gorky has betrayed his mission as a writer, a perfect man in the past and become a defender of party interests”. They hysterically shouted that Gorky was “done”, that “the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party has chewed Gorky to the very last bite”, etc. It indicated that the non-party liberal literature and art was the bourgeois literature and art, and the Party principle which opposed the proletarian literature and art. For the proletarian party members engaging in literary and artistic work, literary and art creation was not an individual undertaking having nothing to do with the common cause of the proletariat, but rightly the common cause of the proletariat.
In his “writers without the Party principle go away!” “superman writers go away!”, Lenin referred to all writers joining the Party and all Party members engaging in text propaganda, but by no means all non-Party writers and authors. Lenin’s remarks were targeted under specific conditions. That is, some Party member writers advocated absolute individual freedom. In particular, those Party member writers who were Menshevik in form openly expressed opinions against the Party, even went beyond the party just like supermen. Plekhanov at the time went beyond the Party and published Social Democrats’ Log independently. Navaya Zhizn, the Bolshevik legal official newspaper, also saw the same articles with mystical meanings and going against the Party outlook of the world. Lenin said the above remarks rightly against these situations. “Writers without the Party principle go away!” can not be interpreted as “writers who are not Party members go away!”, since Lenin held that “some people are yet to have the Party views”, thus had no Party principle or did not have a strong Party principle. Lenin advocated uniting these non-Party writers, which may be manifested even after the October Revolution. After the October Revolution, in the fight against “the proletarian culture school”, Lenin mercilessly ridiculed the sectarianism and closed-doorism views which upheld that the task to construct the proletarian culture could be completed only by the proletariat itself and the proletarian scientists, artists, engineers, etc., saying that they were totally apocryphal. He once pointed out in clear-cut terms, “Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.” (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.4, p. 646)
Secondly, literature of the Party had to become a component of the common cause of the proletariat.
Lenin pointed out, “Literature must become part of the common cause of the proletariat, ‘a cog and a screw’ of one single great Social-Democratic mechanism set in motion by the entire politically-conscious vanguard of the entire working class. Literature must become a component of organized, planned and integrated Social-Democratic Party work.” It’s the main content of the principle of Party publications. The relationship between the Party propaganda agencies (newspapers, presses and publication departments, etc.) and the Party, and the position and role of the Party’s propaganda work in its common cause were discussed here. How to correctly understand it? Firstly, the Party’s propaganda agency had to accept Party leadership, and the Party’s propaganda work had to become a component of the common cause of the Party. Newspapers, magazines and the other publications run by the Party had to spread the views of the Party unequivocally. Secondly, literature of the Party, being ‘a cog and a screw’ of one single great Social-Democratic mechanism set in motion, had to become an indispensable component of the common cause of the Party. Thirdly, literature of the Party, being ‘a cog and a screw’ of an entire machine, had to be placed at a proper position in the common cause of the Party instead of going beyond it. The Mensheviks defamed Lenin, claiming that Lenin was to change men into “cogs and screws” by requesting the Party members to complete Party work. Different from their slanders, Lenin believed, “Literature must become part of the common cause of the proletariat, ‘a cog and a screw’ of one single great Social-Democratic mechanism set in motion by the entire politically-conscious vanguard of the entire working class.” ② (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p. 663)
Lenin made an in-depth elaboration of the relationship between Party literature and the common cause of the proletariat. How to correctly understand the relationship between Party literature and the common cause of the Party? It is believed that the tendency to free Party literature from the common cause of the Party has to be fought against, and the characteristics of Party literature in the common cause of the Party have to be taken into consideration as well. Both the requirement of the common cause of the Party on Party literature, and the promoting role played by Party literature in the common cause of the Party have to be seen clearly. According to Lenin, “‘All comparisons are lame’, says a German proverb. So is my comparison of literature with a cog, of a living movement with a mechanism.” It is a must to not view the relationship between Party literature and the common cause of the Party discussed by Lenin as a mechanic and rigid one, nor a negative and passive one.
It was rightly based on his correct understanding of the relationship between the common cause of the Party and Party literature which Lenin was able to stress the immediate commencement of establishing, reforming and developing extensive propaganda undertaking inclusive newspapers, publications, books, among the other cultural propaganda work, and to place them under concrete Party organization and leadership, in order to expand and reform the Party’s textual propaganda under the then specific conditions. As a proletarian revolutionist, politician and theorist, Lenin observed Party literature from the overall strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolutionary movements. The literary and artistic creation of the Party is also a component of the Party literature. Hence Lenin’s idea that Party literature should be part of the common cause of the Party applied to the literary and artistic creation of the Party, too.
Thirdly, free literature should serve the millions and tens of millions of working people.
Lenin pointed out, “It will be a free literature, because the idea of socialism and sympathy with the working people, and not greed or careerism, will bring ever new forces to its ranks. It will be a free literature, because it will serve, not some satiated heroine, not the bored ‘upper ten thousand’ suffering from fatty degeneration, but the millions and tens of millions of working people—the flower of the country, its strength and its future.” (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p666) Bringing forth the idea that free literature would serve the millions of tens of millions of working people was another major development of the Marxist theories on literature and art made by Lenin. “This question of ‘for whom’ is fundamental; it is a question of principle” (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 2nd edition, vol.3, p. 857).
To serve the working people, this “free literature” had to, with the socialist proletarian experience and vigorous work, enrich the newest achievements made by human beings in revolution and in thought and to educate and encourage the working people with the scientific socialist ideas and practices. Since literary and art creation is also literature, Lenin shifted directly to literary and art creation here, hence the idea that “free literature” had to serve the millions and tens of millions of working people also involved the idea that free literary and artistic creation had to serve the millions and tens of millions of working people. After the victory of the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin went deeper on this idea. In his talk with the Russian female writer Zetkin, he said, “Art belongs to the people. It must have the deepest root in the grassroots working masses.” In Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Zedong proposed that literature and art had to serve the greatest majority of the people, especially the workers, the peasants and the soldiers. It’s a major development of the above idea brought forth by Lenin.
Lenin’s idea was closely related to his idea that art was for the people. To him, the Party principle of art was the mature services to the people which had reached a certain historical height. Party principle involves the service to the people. Highly developed, the services to the people could reach Party principle.
Fourthly, the Party’s propaganda organs should accept Party leadership.
Party publications must accept the supervision of the Party. Lenin pointed out, “This, however, does not in the least refute the proposition, alien and strange to the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy, that literature must by all means and necessarily become an element of Social-Democratic Party work, inseparably bound up with the other elements. Newspapers must become the organs of the various party organizations, and their writers must by all means become members of these organizations. Publishing and distributing centers, bookshops and reading-rooms, libraries and similar establishments—must all be under party control.” “Party literature” “has to accept the supervision of the Party” (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p664).
All these opinions expressed by Lenin were against the advocacy, by the Mensheviks, that the Party’s propaganda agency and Party member writers had to get rid of Party leadership and that Party literature had to get rid of Party supervision. The Mensheviks opposed to implement democratic centralism in the Party or follow strict Party organization and disciplines, but advocated that Party members could work for the Party without joining the Party organization. They abused that Lenin’s principle of Party building was “serfdom”, “bureaucracy” and “formalism”. Lenin made it clear that Party member writers had to accept Party leadership and supervision in politics, ideology and organization. Party literature, being part of the common cause of the Party, had to be led and supervised by the Party. The Party’s leadership over Party literature had to be firstly in the ideological and political guidelines, namely all Party member writers had to consciously abide by and execute Party program, routes, strategies, resolutions and Party constitution; then in organization, since the leadership over Party organization guarantees the Party’s ideological and political leadership. Lenin asked all departments and units engaging in Party literature to accept the leadership and supervision of the Party, the Party member writers to have to join some Party organization before constantly reporting to the Party their work and placing themselves under the leadership and supervision of the Party. All departments and units engaging in Party literature mentioned here do not cover all writers and literature, but Party member writers and the literature created by the Party.
To guarantee the Party’s leadership and supervision over literature, Lenin stressed the necessity to launch ideological struggles within the Party and constant purification of the Party organization. Party member writers had to spread Party views following the Party program, Party constitution, Party strategies and resolutions. No one shall be allowed to “advocate anti-Party views in the name of the Party”. It was a must to pose strict organizational and disciplinary sanctions, when necessary, to those Party members who despised Party program and Party constitution, violated Party disciplines, and spread anti-Party views.
What Lenin intended to say here was that all Party propaganda agencies, Party member writers and Party literature, without exception, had to accept the leadership and supervision of the Party. The literary and art undertaking of the Party had to accept the leadership and supervision of the Party, too. Adhering to Party leadership, being the universal principle, also applies to the Party’s literary and art work today, hence it has to be stuck to.
Fifthly, the Party had to take into full consideration the specificity of literature field in its leadership over it.
Lenin pointed out, “Literature in the common cause of the Party can not be equaled to the other parts of the cause of the proletarian Party”, and “There is no question that literature is least of all subject to mechanical adjustment or leveling, to the rule of the majority over the minority. There is no question, either, that in this field greater scope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative, individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content.” ② (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p664)
Lenin explained the different features of the Party’s textual propaganda from those of the other work, and the different characteristics of Party literature from those of the other undertakings. “…in this field greater scope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative, individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content” here indicated the necessity to guarantee the full expression of personal initiative. Party principle was reflected through personal initiative in literary and artistic creation. As regards the relationship between Party principle and personal initiative in creation, Party principle was common and embodied in the personal initiative in creation. As regards the relationship between party literature and the other undertakings, the characteristics of literature had to be respected. Party leadership over literature had to be carried out on the basis of recognizing and grasping the rules of literature, but not relying on administrative orders. According to Lenin, “We are not suggesting, of course, that this transformation of literary work, which has been defiled by the Asiatic censorship and the European bourgeoisie, can be accomplished all at once. It is far from us to advocate any kind of standardized system or a solution by means of a few of decrees” ②.
Failing to understand such characteristic of literature and trying to lead literature through a set of “commandism” and “formulism” would surely limit the development of literature. “To organize a broad, multiform and varied literature inseparably linked with the Social-Democratic working-class movement” (Ibid, p. 667), the Party had to pay due attention to the above characteristic of literature in its leadership over literature. Any trial to get rid of the Party leadership over literature with the excuse of the characteristics of literature was wrong; any denial of the characteristics of literature when advocating Party leadership over literature was wrong, too.
Relative to Party literature, the literary and artistic undertaking of the Party has its unique characteristics. We have to see not only the characteristics of the general Party newspapers, but also those of the Party’s literary and artistic undertaking. Mastering and respecting the characteristics and special rules of literature is a crucial link in the Party’s correct and effective leadership of the literary and artistic undertaking. We have to follow Lenin’s principle of party publications, pay due attention to the special characteristics of literature, and strengthen and improve Party leadership. On in so doing could we control such baneful phenomena as flagrantly interfering literature or leading the development of literature in a simple administrative manner. We have to fight with the wrong view which denies or doubts Party leadership over the literary and art undertaking, as well as the rigid idea and wrong practice of resisting innovation and not leading literature according to the special rules of the art.
The publication of Party Organization and Party Literature and the spread of Lenin’s theory on Party principle brought the then propaganda work of the Russian Bolsheviks to a brand-new stage. The revolutionary writers, under the guidance of Lenin’s principle of party literature, consciously accepted the leadership of the Bolshevik Party and closely connected their writing to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat, greatly improving the militancy of all party literature and playing a great role in encouraging and promoting the nationwide revolutionary struggle, led by the Russian proletariat, to overthrow the Tsarist ruling. Gorky, the great founder of the Russian proletarian literature, was active in writing articles for Navaya Zhizn and The Battle. At the turn of 1905 and 1906, he wrote a number of papers, short commentaries, leaflets, essays and pamphlets with a distinct political tendency to openly spread the proletarian revolutionary ideas. In 1906, he wrote The Mother, an excellent socialist realistic novel, which was praised as “a very timely book” by Lenin. All these illustrate that Lenin’s principle of party literature armed and guided the creation of the proletarian writers.
After Lenin’s theory on Party principle spread to China, both Mao Zedong and Chen Yun made future explanations. In Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Zedong made a comprehensive and in-depth discussion over the principle of Party literature and art, especially the principle of party litterateurs and artists. He said, “Our stand is that of the proletariat and of the masses. For members of the Communist Party, this means keeping to the stand of the Party, keeping to Party spirit and Party policy.” (Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 2nd edition, vol.3, P. 848)
Chen Yun held that literature and art was a specific division of work for the communist party members engaging in literature and art.
The principle of Party literature and art once played an important and active role in the development of the socialist literature and art. However, due to the incorrect interpretation of Party Organization and Party Literature and the vulgar understanding of it, China encountered this or that kind of problems when implementing the principle of Party literature and art. Well do we still need to follow the principle of Party literature and art today? First of all, it is not necessary that all literary and artistic works contain the communist Party principle. It is impossible and unnecessary to ask some works like those depicting the ancient history or those landscape paintings to contain Party principle. However, the literary and art works reflecting the revolution and construction conducted by the people under Party leadership have to contain Party principle. Seen from practical literary and art creation, a lot of excellent literary and art works contained a strong Party principle, these including contemporary novels Defend Yan’an, Red Sun, Snowy Forest, Keep the Red Flag Flying, The Song of Youth, ” Red Rock, The East, Xu Mao and His Daughters, At Middle Age, Wreaths at the Foot of the High Mountain, etc. It is safe to say that, for such category of literary and art works, containing Party principle is a requirement higher than serving the people. Secondly, though the literary and art works by the Party member writers and artists and those litterateurs and artists determined to fight for the communist cause not necessarily contain Party principle, they themselves should have the Party principle in mind. They are first and foremost fighters who fight for the communist cause. For the party member writers and artists, they have to follow the CPC Central Committee in politics, give top priority to the Party’s interests, obey the Party’s political disciplines and organizational principles, and strive to spread the communist ideas and to construct the socialist spiritual civilization. All these requirements on Party principle should be reflected in the literary and artistic works by the party member litterateurs and artists.
After making clear that Party member litterateurs and artists and those litterateurs and artists who were determined to fight for the communist cause have to have Party principle, purify and strengthen their Party principle, we have to further discuss whether Party principle is truly beneficial to their creation. It’s believed to be beneficial. First of all, China is in a new period of socialist construction. The Communist Party of China is leading the Chinese people to build China into a modernized socialist power with a high degree of democracy and civilization along the road with distinct Chinese characteristics. Development of the socialist cause, construction of the material civilization and spiritual civilization, the fight between Marxism and non-Marxism and anti-Marxism, the fight of the people against the disturbances on the road of socialist construction under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, including the unhealthy tendencies within the Party, etc. all require these writers and artists to have Party principle. Only with Party principle could they keenly observe before correctly presenting the course. Secondly, for the above writers and artists, Party principle will not hinder them from making faithful art creation. The communist Party principle is consistent with the objective course of social development. It requires showing the objective reality in life and the objective rules in the real development of socialism. The bourgeois Parties at the reactionary periods, with interests which are contradictory to the objective course of social development, are afraid of truths. Reactionary exploiting classes’ litterateurs and artists will never be able to create faithful art. An important content of the communist Party principle is the Marxist world outlook which is, at the same time, a sharp weapon for people to analyze social life and find social truths. The communist Party principle and the Marxist world outlook will help the litterateurs and artists to make faithful art creation from life reality. Then for the above litterateurs and artists, Party principle will not hinder, but help them in free creation. Freedom is the understanding of necessity and the practice based on such understanding. To achieve free creation, one must understand the necessity and conduct art practices based on such understanding. The communist Party principle and the Marxist world outlook help achieve the realm. Finally, for the above litterateurs and artists, Party principle will not hinder, but contribute to the display of their personal initiative in creation. In his theory of Party principle, Lenin mentioned “personal initiative, individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content”. That is to say, Party principle guarantees the full display of personal initiative.
To well implement Party principle will give full play to personal initiative in creation. As regards the relationship between Party principle and personal initiative in creation, the former is common, and is embodied in the personal initiative in creation before being displayed through the latter. In his theory of Party principle, Lenin also mentioned, “There is no question that literature is least of all subject to mechanical adjustment or leveling, to the rule of the majority over the minority.” (Selected Works of Lenin, 3rd edition, vol.1, p. 664)
Since Party principle plays an important role in the development of the socialist undertaking of literature and art, China has to stick to the principle of Party literature and art. When explaining the principle of Party principle, Lenin asked people to develop it and to “achieve the principle in the most perfect and intact form”. The theory of communist Party principle applies even today. Yet it is not right to view it as something fixed and unchanged, but to enrich and develop it in specific applications. It is believed that due attention has to be paid to below several aspects when applying the theory of Party principle, i.e.,
Firstly, Party principle applies to those Party member litterateurs and artists and those litterateurs and artists who are determined to fight for communism, but it shall not be viewed as a requirement on all litterateurs and artists. In 1905, class and political struggles were abnormally fierce. Writers generally had Party principle, either the communist Party principle or the bourgeois Party principle.
At the time, both the liberal bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks advocated “non-Party principle” or “no Party principle”. When explaining the principle of Party publications, Lenin shouted, “Writers without the Party principle go away!” It used to be translated into “Down with the non-Party litterateurs!” It’s wrong to interpret Lenin’s remarks into “down with the litterateurs who were not Party members”, or “down with the litterateurs without the Party principle”, since Lenin he himself held that there were “people yet to have Party views”. What Lenin intended to say here was to bring down the writers without Party principle, especially those who were Party members, but advocated no Party principle. Today, the exploiting classes have been wiped out as classes, and class struggles have stopped being the main contradictions in the socialist society. For those litterateurs and artists who are yet to have the communist Party principle, we can not bring them down, but unite them to serve for the people and for socialism.
Secondly, Party principle applies to the literary and art works reflecting modern political struggles, but not the aesthetic emotions in the depiction of ancient topics and landscapes. In the development history of the Russian literature and art, Lunacharsky supported the idea that “art has always been with the Party principle”. Pospelov also advocated that art had always been with the Party principle. It is an idea of philistine sociology to believe that all literary and art works have Party principle. For example, Li Zicheng, a novel themed with the peasants’ uprising at the turn of the Ming and the Qing Dynasties, can not be said to have the communist Party principle, so do some landscape poems and flower-and-bird paintings.
Thirdly, the Party principle in literary and art works is different from that in political writings. Political writings requires clear arguments and logical argumentation. In literary and art works, Party principle is not presented abstractly, but embodied in the systems of art and images created by the litterateurs and artists. The Party principle of the litterateurs and artists is not verbally presented, but shown via vivid and emotional art images. Hence it cannot be equaled to the Party principle in politics and sociology in a simple way.