Advertisement

Art and the Party

  • C. Vaughan James

Abstract

Precisely how justified are contemporary Soviet theoreticians in interpreting Lénin’s article on ‘Party Organisation and Party Literature’1 as they do is a question which is the subject of constant debate. They are certainly rather touchy on the subject themselves, adopting a plainly defensive attitude in many of their statements: ‘V. I. Lenin’s article … is a theoretical document that has a fundamental significance for the entire period of the socialist revolution and the building of communism. This must be stressed with all possible force, since there have been attempts on the part of revisionists to assert that this work was evoked only by the political demands of the moment — the revolution of 1905 — and referred only to the conditions of the time … ’ 2

Keywords

Nineteenth Century Socialist Realism Social Democrat Socialist Revolution Marxist Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 4.
    See, for example, John Berger, Revolution and Art (Penguin Books, 1969) p. 54;Google Scholar
  2. see also Lukács, Solzhenitsyn (Merlin Press, 1970) p. 77.Google Scholar
  3. 12.
    V. I. Lénin, Chto délať?/What is to be Done?, trans. S. V. and P. Utéchin (Panther Books, 1970).Google Scholar
  4. 17.
    V. I. Lénin, Ot kakógo naslédstva my otkázyvayemsya?, 11 530/The Heritage we Renounce in the collection V. I. Lenin on Culture and Cultural Revolution (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970).Google Scholar
  5. 23.
    Sh. M. Lévin, S. N. Valk, V. S. Dyákin (eds), V. I. Lénin i rússkaya obshchestvenno-politícheskaya mysl’ XIX — nachála XX v. (Leningrad: Naúka, 1969) pp. 35–40. Fascinating unexpected support for such a point of view is cited from Dostoyévsky, who, writing on the subject of the International, disagreed with the suggestion that Belínsky, had he lived longer, would have become a Slavophil: ‘Belínsky… might have emigrated… and he would now be an enthusiastic little old man, his warm faith intact and admitting of no shadow of doubt, flitting from congress to congress in Germany and Switzerland.’ F. M. Dostoyévsky, Collected Works (in Russian), v 152.Google Scholar
  6. 28.
    See N. K. Krúpskaya, O Lénine. Sbórnik staťyéi i vystuplénii (Moscow: Izdátel’stvo politícheskoi literatury, 1971) 281–2f.Google Scholar
  7. 30.
    K. Marks, F. Engel’s i revolyutsiónnaya Rossíya (Moscow, 1967) pp. 48, 226.Google Scholar
  8. 35.
    A. V. Lunachársky, Staťyi o literatúre (Moscow, 1957) p. 118.Google Scholar
  9. 42.
    N. A. Dobrolyúbov, quoted in Zerchanínov, Ráikhin, Strázhev, Rússkaya literatúra (Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1948) pp. 132–5.Google Scholar
  10. 43.
    D. I. Písarev, Prómakhi nezréloi mýsli, in Rússkoye slóvo in 1864; see D. I. Písarev, Collected Worlds (in Russian), (Moscow, 1956) in 147–9.Google Scholar
  11. 49.
    P. N. Tkachëv, Selected Worlds (in Russian), III (Moscow, 1933) quoted by Lévin et al., op. cit.Google Scholar
  12. 55.
    K. N. Leónťyev, Vostók, Rossíya i slavyánstvo (Moscow, 1883) 11 86, quoted by Lévin et al. Google Scholar
  13. 58.
    G. V. Plekhánov, Collected Works (in Russian), (Moscow-Petrograd, 1924) 11 255, quoted by Lévin et al. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© C. Vaughan James 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Vaughan James
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SussexUK

Personalised recommendations