Ideas of Marx and Engels On the Proletarian Literature and Plekhanov’s Contributions

Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou  from  School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing

At the early stage of the proletarian revolution, with their historical vision and through their efforts to reveal the laws of social development, Marx and Engels saw the prospect that the proletarian literature and art would soon come.

However, the idea was not correctly understood by some later Marxists like Lafarge and Mehring. They believed that the working class under heavy pressures of capitalism was unable to create its own literature and art.”

Lafarge once said, “People engaging in the gear system of production and having descended to such a humble situation due to excessive toil and poverty are so muddled that they have simply the power to suffer, not that to tell their sufferings.”

Hence Lafarge held that the proletarians which had become the accessories of the great industry were not allowed to have the glorious poetic capacity of expression. Plekhanov, based on his in-depth study of the theories of Marx and Engels and profound understanding of the relations between being and consciousness, held that, as long as it went to the historical stage of the proletarian revolution, some literature and art would emerge to reflect it. Because each class had its special emotions and feelings in certain social life; the works which reflected such special emotions and feelings belonged to the proletarian art which emerged for not being able to violate this general rule of materialism.

Besides, since the proletariat, of all social classes, represented the most ways of production and the direction of historical development, its literature and art would surely serve social development and socialist movements because it was advanced. Seen from the above opinions, either from his understanding of historical materialism and his confirmation of the creativity of the proletariat, Plekhanov went a step forward than Lafarge and Mehring. 

How did the proletarian literature and art emerge? Plekhanov firstly analyzed the situation of the Russian literary and art circles. The excellent writers, who had created a large group of masterpieces of worldwide significance, though enjoying a high reputation, did not understand the mentality of the working class. They were writers for “the upper class”.

With the hümanism as their weapon, they criticized the old world and showed their sympathy and pity for the insulted and the suffered. However, for Plekhanov, “The upper classes do not and cannot go beyond sympathy and pity for the insulted and humiliated. The pictures of Munkacsy, Bilbao and Rotta speak of pity, urge pity; the statues of Biesbroeck, Braecke and Meunier speak of pity, urge pity. The best of those representatives of the upper classes who have not been able to go over once and for all to the side of the proletariat are capable only of wishing ‘good night’ to the unfortunate and oppressed.” ② (Selected Readings from Plekhanov’s Aesthetic Theories, 1st edition, p. 524)

However, good intentions are not salvation medicine. Plekhanov, standing at the height of the era and from the perspective of the proletariat, said, “Thank you, kind sirs! But your clocks are slow: the night is at an end, the ‘real day’ is beginning…” ②

Such analysis of the era and the art circles made Plekhanov consider pointing out the road “to take the side of the proletariat” for these artists. That’s why he called them to say goodbye to the old Oblomov and to enter a new life, listen carefully to the voice of the “4th estate”, and try to master “the great emancipated ideas of the era”.

The above series of requirements were comprehensive and specific, from which we see his enthusiasm and eagerness. On the one hand, he expected, from these artists of “the upper class”, some new artists who could change their stances and master the Marxist ideas. On the other hand, he expected the emergence of the proletarian artists. He once foretold that the artists for the proletariat would never be like those “of the upper class” like Pushkin who had a foreign babysitter since very young to teach him language (Pushkin once told how his babysitter enriched his language), they must be the people walking out of the depth of life and having experienced revolutions.

Therefore, when Gorky walked out of the team of wanderers with Children of the Sun, The Lower Depths, Enemies, The Life of Matvei Kozhemyakin and The Mother, Plekhanov confirmed them without any hesitation. Despite individual errors, Plekhanov spoke highly of Gorky’s works in general, praising him for understanding the mentality of the working class, appreciating the images of the workers full of the high-minded spirit of self-sacrifice, and pointing out that there were many provoking contents in his works. To Plekhanov, Gorky was a proletarian “artists with great gift”. Led by Gorky, in the territory of Russia in less than half a century, a large group of excellent proletarian artists launched an unprecedented socialist literary and art movement. It was the campaign Plekhanov once keenly expected and fought for, and Plekhanov made his due contribution to it.

Thanks to Plekhanov’s theoretical and practical efforts, the Marxist thought on literature and art was widely spread and developed in Russia. Some of his books became hot among the then revolutionary young. It is safe to say that Plekhanov was the first theorist in Russia to study and solve literary and art issues with Marxism.

Plekhanov inherited the heritage of aesthetics of the Russian revolutionary democrats like Belinskiy, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov before forming his own ideas on literature and art, thus his ideas on literature and art showed the style of his nation and the combination of originality and nationality. For delving into the books on anthropology, sociology, economics, history, political science and archeology, comprehensively and systematically studying the development of the ideologies and cultures in Europe and Russia, and closely relating the modern society to art movements, Plekhanov was able to form abundant, profound, scientific and fighting ideas on literature and art. It has to be pointed out that Plekhanov made the above studies before reading a series of important books on aesthetics by Marx and Engels.

No matter in the research methods, the understanding of the fundamental art principles or in the conclusions drawn over some specific art issues, Plekhanov’s studies were surprisingly similar to those made by Marx and Engels, which not only shows his theoretical boldness and creative capacity, but also his profound understanding of the Marxist principles. Plekhanov’s  ideas on literature and art inevitably generated far-reaching influences.

Nevertheless, Plekhanov made serious political mistakes, which was reflected in his art theories.

It has to be admitted that his ideas on literature and art were not all the time perfect, but sometimes contradictory. For example, generally speaking, Plekhanov advocated the ideological contents and social role of art, but when it came to concrete issues, Plekhanov showed the influence, on him, of Kant’s view that aesthetic judgments were irrational and non-utilitarian, and viewed intuition as an instinct.

 It was under such influence that he made a not that proper judgment over Gorky’s The Mother. Plekhanov stuck to the materialist ideas on literature and art, thinking that all art styles and schools emerged under proper historical conditions. The art of building in ancient Greek and Rome, the Gothic architectural art, the French classical tragedies and romantic dramas were all products of their respective eras.

Hence Plekhanov  argued, “For the history of literature, it is important to illustrate why and how the French tragedies emerged, then disappeared”.

This is absolutely right. But Plekhanov also held that there were no good or bad literary phenomena since they were the products of their respective eras and emerged for some reasons, and that critics could not show any “preference”.

Thus Plekhanov denied the objective standards on criticism and dragged his materialism into mechanism and absolute relativism. Plekhanov’s explanation on “the intermediate factors” was undoubtedly fabulous. Based on his philosophical system, Plekhanov pointed out the great influences of the mentality of social man on philosophy, religion, art and other social ideologies, which is also correct.

But Plekhanov seldom mentioned the important influences of philosophy, religion, art and other social ideologies, upon formation, on the mentality of social man. Similarly, Plekhanov reiterated the significance of the economic and social relations to social consciousness. However Plekhanov  sometimes overstressed the role of the productive forces, even the technical factors for production in social consciousness. When speaking of the ideological and emotional contents of art, he sometimes emphasized too much on the ideological contents, but too little on the emotional contents.

All these indicated that Plekhanov failed to thoroughly stick to dialectics in terms of the way of thinking, but adhered to the old materialist metaphysics. In addition, Plekhanov failed to fully study the significance of art traditions, different art styles, the interactions among different schools, etc. The above mistakes and errors made by Plekhanov demonstrate the weakness in mind and incompleteness in theories and methods seen in an intellectual who has departed from the actual revolutionary struggles for long. Plekhanov’s mistakes and errors were made use of in Russia in the early days after the victory of the October Revolution and developed into philistine sociology.

Plekhanov’s theories were reputed as the orthodox theories of Marxism at the time. After the1930s, when the Soviet academia criticized philistine sociology, Plekhanov’s theories were called the Menshevik opportunistic theories.

The quite different comments apparently did not conform to his situation at the time. It is believed that both his philosophical or literary theories were Marxist in general. Engels once said to Zasulich, “As far as I am concerned, only two people could understand and master Marxism, Mehring and Plekhanov.” (Cited from A Biography of Plekhanov, 1st edition, p156, Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1980).

Krupskaya once said, “Plekhanov played a decisive role in the life of the old generation Marxists”, “Vladimir Ilyich never set himself against Plekhanov” ( Krupskaya: Memories of Lenin, 1st edition, p181, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1960).

With a scientific outlook of the world, Plekhanov well studied and absorbed the heritage of human culture, especially that of the Russian revolutionary democrats, and reformed it before establishing his own system of theories on literature and art. Thanks to his extensive knowledge and profound theoretical deposits, his theories on literature and art were of consequent significance in his era, and served as an important bridge that linked the era of Marx and Engels and that of Lenin. Hence in the development of the Marxist ideas on literature and art, Plekhanov shall be given a prominent position. Plekhanov’s accomplishments not only were of guiding significance in his era, but also are of important reference significance today.