{"id":5406,"date":"2025-04-24T13:02:09","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T13:02:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=5406"},"modified":"2025-04-24T13:02:10","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T13:02:10","slug":"lenins-struggle-against-wrong-tendencies-in-literature-art-copying-western-modernist-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=5406&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Lenin\u2019s Struggle against Wrong Tendencies in Literature & Art: Copying Western Modernist Art"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lenin\u2019s Struggle against Wrong Tendencies in Literature & Art: Copying Western Modernist Art<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

January 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou is from  School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin adhered to the Marxism when leading the Soviet Union\u2019s literary and art work. When criticizing wrong tendencies, Lenin waged a battle against two wrong tendencies. Lenin was against the proletarian culture school and also criticized copying Western modernism, both the \u201cleftist\u201d and the rightist tendencies. An analysis of Lenin\u2019s theories and practices of fighting against the wrong tendencies will be made in two aspects, i.e., his resistance of the Prolecult and his critique of copying modernism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of Lenin\u2019s resistance of the proletarian culture school, the proletarian culture school was a school composed of the Prolecult organizations. Prolecult was a cultural and educational group set up in September 1917.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time, it declared itself to be an independent workers\u2019 organization which was not administered by the Kerensky Ministry of National Education. After the October Revolution, many workers joined it with enthusiasm with the purpose of building the proletarian culture. In 1919, it developed rapidly to cover the entire nation. It\u2019s estimated that it had about 400,000 members. It\u2019s under such a situation that alien class elements mobbed it. Machist Bogdanov took the chance to take its leadership. He himself held the leading position of Prolecult, and his supporters held some important positions therein. They spread a series of ultra-leftist theories and adopted a whole set of wrong practices. Targeting at the ultra-leftist theories and practices of the proletarian culture school, Lenin waged a battle of principle in the following several aspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To start with, Lenin solved the issue about Party leadership over the proletarian culture school. Proletcult highlighted independence and getting rid of the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Education during the Kerensky period, which was of positive significance before the October Revolution. After the October Revolution, the proletariat set up its own power, but the Proletcult insisted on \u201cindependence\u201d, which was obviously an expression of trying to get rid of and resist Party leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s of no positive significance at all. What\u2019s more, it played a negative, even reactionary role. Lenin criticized some of its leaders for their theories and practices \u201cto remain isolated in self-contained organizations, to draw a line dividing the field of work of the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education and the Proletcult, or to set up a Proletcult \u2018autonomy\u2019 within establishments under the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education and so forth.\u201d He asked \u201cthe Congress enjoins all Proletcult organizations to fully consider themselves in duty bound to act as auxiliary bodies of the network of establishments under the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education, and to accomplish their tasks under the general guidance of the Soviet authorities (specifically, of the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education) and of the Russian Communist Party, as part of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship\u201d (Selected Works of Lenin<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, vol.4, p.299).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The above is a passage from the draft resolution drawn by Lenin for the Proletcult Congress held in October 1920. Lenin asked the Proletcult organizations to accept Party leadership, accomplish their tasks under the general guidance of the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education and become part of it. Lenin had expressed the same meaning to Lunacharsky, member of the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education. Later Proletcult reorganized itself following Lenin\u2019s instruction. While criticizing the proletarian culture school for insisting on \u201cautonomy\u201d, Lenin criticized Lunacharsky for the latter\u2019s the concession on this issue of principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then Lenin held that it was the Marxist world outlook instead of Machism which should be adopted to guide the building of the proletarian culture. Bogdanov, representative of the proletarian culture school, used to be a faithful believer of Machism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reactionary philosophical idea of Empirio-Criticism which Bogdanov advocated was once ruthlessly criticized by Lenin. The Machist philosophy of subjective idealism denied the existence of the objective reality beyond human mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Machists, the world exists only in people\u2019s perception and concepts, and it is a sum of human feelings. Bogdanov\u2019s Machism, though having been criticized by Lenin before the October Revolution, saw the reduction of none of its popularity with Bogdanov. After the October Revolution, Bogdanov smuggled the Machist philosophy. Instead of viewing art as a special way adopted by human beings to reflect the world, Bogdanov viewed it as a means of \u201corganizational experience\u201d, i.e., being irrelevant to the objective reality and to people\u2019s subjective sensation reflected by the objective reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bogdanov advocated rebuilding \u201ca pure proletarian culture\u201d, departing from life and the reality, and inventing culture in \u201cthe lab way\u201d. As early as before the October Revolution, Bogdanov had begun to invent a \u201cparticular brand of culture\u201d following the Machist philosophy. His novel Red Star<\/em> is a bizarre story made up by him in his study. After reading it, Lenin satirized, \u201cThat author in our country somewhat cheated us. His Mars beauty is by no means intact. It seems that his principle is probably \u2018an encouraging lie is better than tens of millions of humble truths\u2019\u201d (Collected Works of Lenin<\/em>, 2nd<\/sup> Chinese edition, vol.53, p. 311, Beijing: People\u2019s Publishing House, 1988).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In refusal of Lenin\u2019s critiques, Bogdanov stopped fabricating lies to replace the truths, but began to resist practice with the so-called experiments after the October Revolution. The Prolecult members were stubborn in that they claimed that the proletariat should separate itself from the real life and the struggles it\u2019s launched for building socialism, but build its own literature and art in the lab, art rooms and studios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They proclaimed, \u201cThe proletariat club is the factory for the proletariat to manufacture their own culture\u201d, \u201cart rooms train people to create new art forms and build new ways of scientific thinking\u201d, \u201cin these art rooms, it\u2019s better to compare them to labs (which is normally seen). Here sees the experiments to explore new cultural fruits in a special and partly artificial environment.\u201d The proletarian culture school artists separated themselves from life and practice, and isolated themselves in the lab of \u201ccreation\u201d, creating a group of abstract and ashy works. In the preface he wrote for the 2nd<\/sup>-edition Materialism and Empirio-Criticism<\/em>, Lenin pointed out that Bogdanov smuggled the bourgeois reactionary views in the name of \u201cproletarian culture\u201d. In December 1920, when meeting Walken, Lenin also pointed out that some people attempted to influence the proletariat by smuggling alien ideologies and ideas through Prolecult. Obviously, he meant the smuggling of the Machist philosophy by Bogdanov and his like. In On Proletarian Culture<\/em>, Lenin criticized \u201call attempts to invent one\u2019s own particular brand of culture, to remain isolated in self-contained organizations\u201d. \u2462 (Selected Works of Lenin<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, vol.4, p. 299)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1922, Lenin once again refuted this view with strength. He criticized Pletnev for the latter\u2019s comparing the building of the proletarian culture to an experimental course in article On the Ideological Front<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also criticized Machism, the philosophical foundation of the proletarian culture school, believing it a must to guide the development of the proletarian culture with Marxism. In his words, \u201cAll the experience of modern history and, particularly, the more than half-century-old revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of all countries since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto<\/em> has unquestionably demonstrated that the Marxist world outlook is the only true expression of the interests, the viewpoint, and the culture of the revolutionary proletariat\u201d \u2462.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After that, Lenin criticized the historical nihilism held by the proletarian culture school toward cultural heritage. The proletarian culture school despised the classical cultural heritages. Kirrilov, the proletarian cultural school poet, wrote in the poem <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We<\/em>,\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are fanatic, we are pugnacious<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are crazy about<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hearing people shouting at us,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou killers, you kill beauty!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For our tomorrow-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are to burn Raphael into ashes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To destroy all museums,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And to crumble the flower of art underfoot.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Quoted from Zheng Yifan: A Debate over Cultural Inheritance<\/em> published in People\u2019s Daily<\/em>, September 29, 1980)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some proletarian culture school writer, with an ultra-leftist stance, claimed without any reservation that \u201cno inheritance relationship\u201d was needed between the \u201cnew\u201d and the \u201cold\u201d creation (Quoted from Lenin and the Issues on the Russian Literature<\/em>, 1st<\/sup> edition, p. 440).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also yelled \u201cto throw Pushkin, Tolstoy and some other writers off the ship of real life\u201d, \u201cto tear and crash the old art forms from the earth\u201d. Targeting at the historical nihilism held by the proletarian culture school, Lenin reiterated, \u201cProletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society.\u201d (Selected Works of Lenin<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, vol.4, p. 285)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMarxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture. Only further work on this basis and in this direction, inspired by the practical experience of the proletarian dictatorship as the final stage in the struggle against every form of exploitation, can be recognized as the development of a genuine proletarian culture.\u201d (Ibid, p. 299)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Lenin criticized the wrong advocacy of the proletarian culture school to deny historical traditions and serve national cultural and historical traditions, holding that only by inheriting historical heritage could the proletarian culture be developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin also criticized the wrong idea of the proletarian culture school on the aims of culture. In 1918, in his letter to the presidium of the Proletarian Cultural and Educational Organizations Conference, Lenin brought forth the political task faced by the Prolecult. He held the shortcoming of the Prolecult to be its rare association of its work with the general political task of struggle and its ignorance of helping the people to raise their awareness, training and improving the workers to hold the state power through the Soviet. Nevertheless, a few Prolecult leaders were in defiance of the task put forward by Lenin. Till 1920, In On Proletarian Culture<\/em>, Lenin pointed out that the Prolecult organizations must \u201caccomplish their tasks\u2026as part of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship\u201d,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201c\u2026be imbued with the spirit of the class struggle being waged by the proletariat for the successful achievement of the aims of its dictatorship, i.e., the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the abolition of classes, and the elimination of all forms of exploitation of man by man\u201d (Selected Works of Lenin<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, vol.4, pp. 298-299).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The culture built by the proletarian culture school was not for serving people, even far away from the people. Poet Kirrilov wrote that if a work was not understood, it would not be able to extensively comprehended, but it may not be unfortunate; that trying to make him popular with people was a fault rather than a merit in a poet. The proletarian culture school writers and artists tried every means to create some art which was not understood by the people, and did not present the advanced ideas and thoughts of the people. As early as in Party Organization and Party Literature<\/em>, Lenin had pointed out that art \u201c\u2026will serve\u2026the millions and tens of millions of working people\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin criticized the proletarian culture school for the tendency of divorcing with the people. He said, \u201cArt belongs to the people.\u201d That is to say, it must have the most profound root in the grassroots working masses. It must be understood and loved by the masses; it must be based on the feelings, ideas and will of these people; and it must be able to arouse the arts from among the masses before helping them get developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly Lenin criticized the sectarianism held by the proletarian culture school. What the proletarian culture school advocated was sectarianism and self-isolationism. Lenin criticized the sectarianism held by the proletarian culture school for many times. In his notes on On the Ideological Front<\/em>, Lenin criticized this bad tendency of theirs in a more concentrated way. When reading Pletnev\u2019s \u201conly with the power of the proletariat itself could the task of building the proletarian culture be completed\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art<\/em> (II), 1st<\/sup> edition, p770), he double underlined \u201citself\u201d and wrote besides it, \u201cWhat about the peasants?\u201d When reading \u201cthe ship of the revolution could be \u2018built\u2019 only with \u2018our own strength\u2019\u201d, \u201cthe proletarian class awareness\u201d was \u201cout of dune with the peasants, capitalists and intellectuals, i.e., the doctors, jurists and engineers trained following the capitalist principle of competitions\u201d (Ibid, p771), he annotated, \u201cWhat about the percentage of building the ship?\u201d Lenin criticized the proletarian culture school for rejecting the peasants and the intellectuals. When reading \u201cthe task to build the proletarian culture could be completed only by the proletariat itself and the scientists, artists and engineers of a proletarian background\u201d, he annotated, \u201cFully apocryphal\u201d (Ibid, p. 774).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, when criticizing the proletarian culture school, Lenin picked on the copying modernist thought on literary and art. After the October Revolution, when the proletarian culture school developed at large, the copying modernist thought on literature and art also became widely speculated, which \u201cbrews chaos, feverishly seeks new slogans, announces today to \u2018celebrate\u2019 the art and thinking in the field of a faction and cries to \u2018crucify\u2019 it the next day\u201d. Lenin\u2019s theories and practices of fighting against the copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art will be introduced next in five aspects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, Lenin was against the copying modernist thought on literary and art from the angle of resisting the influence of the bourgeois ideas. Copying modernism appearing in the Soviet Republic was a bourgeois trend of thought which was totally transplanted from the Western modernist ideology, and it was a rightist trend of thought. This trend of thought gave birth to a muddy and perturbed flood of vulgar novels and porn works of art. At the time, \u201cthe glass of water theory\u201d appeared in literary and art works, which claimed that till the communist society, it would become as normal and easy as drinking a glass of water to meet the demand for love and sex. These lustful literary and artistic works annoyed Lenin very much. He said that it was not allowed to publicize the promiscuous behaviors between men and women in the revolution, that the sensuality of the sexual life was a decayed bourgeois phenomenon, and that it was not right to let the ideological chaos develop freely. In his words, \u201cWe can never sit by and let the chaos spread freely. We must make conscious efforts to lead the development and to form and determine its results.\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art <\/em>(II), 1st<\/sup> edition, p. 434)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, Lenin criticized the copying of Western modernist thought on literature and art from the sense of beauty and artistry. He said, \u201cI have the courage to show myself a \u2018barbarian\u2019. I can\u2019t value the works of the expressionism, futurism, cubism and other isms as the highest expression of artistic genius. I don\u2019t understand them. They give me no pleasure.\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art<\/em>, 1st<\/sup> edition, p. 136, Beijing: People\u2019s Literature Publishing House, 1959)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is to say, copying modernism art brought to Lenin no pleasure. At a concert, Lenin was sitting in the front several rows. When an actress recited the lines from Mayakovsky\u2019s poem, i.e., \u201cOur God\/Is running\/The heart\/Is our drum\u201d, she approaching Lenin, and Lenin sat there, being embarrassed out of expectation. It was not until another actor replaced the actress and began to recite Chekhov\u2019s The Evildoer<\/em> that Lenin felt released (Ibid, p. 120).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This copying modernist art performance gave Lenin no esthetic pleasure. He criticized Mayakovsky\u2019s copying futurist poem by saying \u201cbarking, bellowing, fabricating some strange words, and nothing in his poems is necessary, being, in my opinion – not necessary and difficult to understand. Everything is disjointed and difficult to read\u201d (Ibid, p. 134).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When visiting Higher Crafts and Arts School in 1921, Lenin talked with the students his opinions on resisting the copying modernist thought on literature and art. He pointed out that the enthusiasm in modernism also had an unconscious worship over the dominating trend of art in Western Europe. The blind worship of the Western modernist art served as one reason to explain why the copying modernist thought on literature and art was popular in the Soviet Republic. Lenin judged the worship as \u201cridiculous, absolutely ridiculous\u201d! His thought on breaking the worship over theWestern modernism played a great role in promoting the development of socialist literature and art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, Lenin criticized the copying of modernist thought on literature and art from the angle that \u201cart belongs to the people\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin held \u201cOur opinion on art is not important\u201d, and he did \u201cnot take the personal esthetic likes and dislikes as the leading ideas\u201d. It\u2019s from the angle of divorcing with the people and the masses that Lenin criticized the copying modernist thought on literature and art. He pointed out that both the workers and the peasants \u201chave the right to true, great art\u201d. Hence, before everything else, wide popular education and instruction needed launching. \u201cThey are the cultural soil-assuming the bread assured, on which a truly new, great will grow up, a Communist art, arranging its forms according to its content\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art<\/em>, 1st<\/sup> edition, p438). The ideology of the masses restricts the development of art. People need art to not only contain the communist ideas and contents, but also have the corresponding forms. The masses were against the copying of modernist thought on literature and art, and asked for the socialist and communist art. Their opinions were the foundation for the Party to formulate its policies, also for the Party to formulate its policies on the copying modernist thought on literature and art. It\u2019s rightly because it had no root in the masses that the copying modernist thought on literature and art saw a short life in the Soviet Republic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourthly, Lenin criticized the copying of Western modernist thought on literature and art from the angle of critically inheriting heritage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has to be mentioned that Lenin did not resist all foreign literature and art. He advocated critically inheriting the foreign literary and cultural heritage. Lenin once signed an order to nationalize Sukin Art Gallery. In the order, he pointed out that the gallery \u201chas collected the extremely precious works created by the great artists in Europe, of which most were created by the French masters at the turn of the 19th<\/sup> and the 20th<\/sup> centuries. In terms of its high artistic value, the gallery is of a popular significance to the people\u2019s educational cause\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art <\/em>(II), 1st<\/sup> edition, p. 805).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the October Revolution, the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, following Lenin\u2019s ideas, preserved a large group of foreign literary and artistic heritage, including the modernist literary and artistic heritage. However like the proletarian cultural school, the copying modernist thought on literature and art adopted a nihilism attitude toward the literary and artistic heritage. Their artist claimed Pushkin, Tolstoy, Glinka and Repin to be \u201coutdated figures\u201d. They worshiped the guised Western European modernism while regarding the various modernist affections as the highest achievements. Lenin criticized the same nihilism attitude, pointing out that artists holding the copying modernist thought on literature and art denied the classical literary and art heritage, which was wrong. In the meanwhile, he resisted the innovation which was not made by critically inheriting the classical literary and artistic heritage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifthly, Lenin not only criticized the copying modernist thought on literature and art in theory, but also waged a battle against it in practice. In 1920, Lenin got personally involved in making some measures to restrict the copying modernist thought on literature and art. He gave the publication of the modernist works his personal attention. In his letter to Lunacharsky, Lenin wrote, \u201cAren\u2019t you ashamed to vote for printing 5,000 copies of Mayakovsky\u2019s \u2018150,000,000\u2019? It is nonsense, stupidity, double-dyed stupidity and affectation. <\/a>I believe such things should be published one in ten, and not more than 1,500 <\/em>copies, for libraries and cranks.\u201d (Lenin on Literature and Art<\/em>, 1st<\/sup> edition, p. 363)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Long poem 150,000,000<\/em>, in a bizarre form, reflected the poet\u2019s ideological tendency of copying futurism in his earlier creation. Lenin criticized Lunacharsky for standing at the stance of copying futurist trend of literary and artistic thought, and notified him to limit the prints of the poem. On the same day, Lenin wrote another short letter to another commissar of the People\u2019s Commissariat of Education Pokrovsky, in which he wrote, \u201cAgain and again, I request you to help us fight futurism, etc. 1) Lunacharsky has (alas!) got through the collegium the printing of Mayakovsky\u2019s 150,000,000<\/em>. Can\u2019t we stop this? It must be stopped. Let\u2019s agree that these futurists are to be published not more than twice a year and not more than 1,500 copies.<\/em> 2) They say that Lunacharsky has once again driven out Kiselis, who is reputed to be a \u2018realist<\/em>\u2019 artist, while directly and indirectly <\/em>promoting a futurist. Could you find some reliable anti-futurists?\u201d<\/strong> (Ibid, p. 364)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this letter we can see how considerate Lenin was in organizing forces to fight against the copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art, and that Lenin advocated modernism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his attitude toward the copying of Western modernist trend of thought on literature and art, we can see that he aimed at reversing the then chaotic situation in the then literati to facilitate the socialist revolution and construction and the smooth development of the socialist cultural undertaking. It has to be admitted that his aim was later achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However when reflecting on that period of history today, we have to see that the modernist literature and art and its trend was a very complex literary and art phenomenon. Different modernist schools had not only excellent works with advanced ideological tendencies, but also lamentable works with ideological decadence, presenting, to the utmost, both the weakness of denying traditions and of pushing some absurd means of art expression and the strength of boldly breaking the traditional techniques. As regards the foreign modernist schools, they all had shining spots worth analyzing and learning from, ideologically and artistically. Take an overall look at Lenin\u2019s proposals to resist modernism, we may find that Lenin actually resisted copying the foreign modernist thoughts on literature and art. It\u2019s not long after foreign modernism emerged that Lenin died. Since foreign modernism was still in its early development stage while Lenin was still alive, Lenin failed to have an overall understanding of it, thus failed to make an overall judgment on it. That copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art disappeared from the literati of the Soviet Republic mainly because of its own lethal weaknesses. However, the overall resistance and denial of foreign modernist literature and art in the Soviet Republic literati had something to do with Lenin\u2019s attitude toward the copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art and the measures he took.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That Lenin was against the copying of modernist remarks was understood as his resistance against modernism; that the measures he took to restrict the copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art became measures to prohibit modernism. This must be remembered as a lesson. When Lenin fought against the copying of modernist trend of thought on literature and art and advocated modernism, it was read into simply allowing the existence of realism, not the modernist school in the Soviet Republic literati.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But we must accept that diversified styles and a number of literary and artistic trends of thought are needed in order to prosper literature and art. The practice of allowing simply the existence of the socialist modernist principle of creation later in the Soviet Republic was obviously undesirable. Take Mayakovsky for example, Mayakovsky shifted from the copying of Western modernist trend of thought on literature and art to socialist modernism and was the founder of the socialist modernist poems in Soviet Republic, but he still absorbed nutrients from the foreign futurist art he had pursued in the past, or he would never become the most talented poet with a distinct personality in the Soviet Republic. Later, refusing the modernist principle of literary and artistic creation was somewhat a loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In brief, from Lenin\u2019s attitude and views on the critique of copying of Western modernist trend of thought on literature and art, we should have reached such an understanding, i.e., the Marxist theorists, thinkers and revolutionists all discussed literary and artistic issues under specific historical and objective conditions and at a cognitive level to which they could reach subjectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence it\u2019s unavoidable that Marxist theorists, thinkers and revolutionists sometimes were biased and prejudiced. We should not avoid their opinions, nor demand perfection. When criticizing the copying of modernist trend of thought on literature and art, Lenin did see its inconsistence with the socialist revolution and construction and saw its own contradictions and weaknesses. However, I think that the prohibitive measures taken by Lenin to the modernist school should never be forgotten or repeated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though the proletarian culture school and the copying of modernist trend of thought on literature and art, both of which were opposed by Lenin, are two different trends of art thoughts with two totally different sets of theoretical systems, they have something in common, i.e., both are historical idealist and metaphysical in philosophy and both adhere to the views of philistine sociology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of literary and cultural heritage, both are surprisingly alike, etc. Some schools presenting the ultra-left or ultra-right trends seem to be completely different in form, but they have internal association in other aspects, thus may be transformed into one another under certain conditions. Therefore, when fighting against tendencies, we cannot resist one wrong tendency with another wrong one, but have to pay attention to the association between the \u201cleft\u201d and the right and possible transformation under certain conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin\u2019s theories on and practices of fighting against the proletarian culture school and his critique the copying modernist trend of thought on literature and art are his excellent contribution in the literary and artistic field after the October Revolution, also very valuable in the treasury of his esthetics and literary and artistic theories, which are of direct realistic significance even today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lenin\u2019s Struggle against Wrong Tendencies in Literature & Art: Copying Western Modernist Art January 2008 Author Prof. Zhou Zhonghou is from  School of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing Lenin adhered to the Marxism when leading the Soviet Union\u2019s literary and art work. When criticizing wrong tendencies, Lenin waged a battle against two wrong […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,29,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-en","category-philosophy-en","category-uncategorized"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5406"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5406\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5408,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5406\/revisions\/5408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}