The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics: The Development of Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union Author(s): Margaret M. Bullitt Source: Russian Review, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), pp. 53-76 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/127656 . Accessed: 27/06/2011 03:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Russian Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Toward MarxistTheory Aesthetics: a of The Development Socialist Realism of in the SovietUnion

M. By MARGARET BULLITT

Socialist realism, celebrated since 1934 by Soviet officials and party critics as the artistic expression of the proletarian revolution and as the most vivid, profound, and heroic cultural development since the Renaissance, is generally greeted by Western critics with bemusement or open hostility. The central characteristics of socialist realism, its steadfastly optimistic and frankly tendentious approach to human experience, its identification of aesthetic worth with ideological "correctness," and its enforced harmony of aesthetic expression with current party policies seem to many non-Soviet observers to suggest instead the restriction willy-nilly of human knowledge and perception within the field of art. There is strong evidence, moreover, to suspect that the theory of socialist realism fundamentally corrupts a genuinely Marxist approach to cultural activity. This essay discusses the theory of socialist realism as it relates to literature and is organized along the following lines: first, socialist realism must be interpreted within the broad philosophical framework of Marxism, a tradition to which it affects loyalty and claims lineage. Second, socialist realism must be related to the various and opposing interpretations of Marxism which flourished in the stormy period of literary debate in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. The discussion focuses on a few prominent individuals who most extended and expressed each side of the dispute regarding the nature and function of literature and who proved to be the most influential, politically, personally, or theoretically, to the development and resolution of that debate. Third, socialist realism must be understood as in part a product of the social and economic developments of the decade, and as an artistic theory that crystallized in the early 1930s 53

54

The Russian Review

largely in responseto political exigencies.After thus discussingthe genesis and the elaborationof socialistrealismand its officialadoption by the Communist party,the essayconcludeswith an assessment of the validityof the theoryas a Marxist approachto art. Marxand Engels on Art It is somewhat startlingto recall that the vigorous,intense, and often strident debate among most literarycritics and theoreticians in Russia in the 1920s took place upon a common philosophical these critics agreed that art in generaland foundation.As Marxists, literaturein particularare elements of the superstructure and are conditionedby society'seconomicbase and classdivisions. ultimately They likewise assumedthat the critic can and must interpretliterature within the context of these sociologicaland economicfactors. dissolved. the Beyondthese abstractions consensusamongMarxists In the absence of a specific,coherentguide by Marxand Engels to the particularproblemsof art and culture, many critics simply asconclusions sumedthat the Marxist regardingdialecticalmaterialism and the primacyof economicforcesin society and historyappliedto questionsof artas well. These criticsdenied the necessityof developing a separatetheory of literaturewithin the total Marxistworldoccasionalcommentson literature view.' Otherstried to workMarx's and artinto a unifiedtheoryor techniqueand then soughtto discover how this scheme connectedwith the largerbody of his analysis. The scope and varietyof the artisticissuesto which literarycritics addressedthemselves and to which they sought a correct Marxist approachwere enormous.Was art really necessary?To what extent did art explore dimensionsof human experiencenot accessible to philosophyor religion?How much of the past bourgeoisart was it proper to assimilate,and why did it still appeal? To what degree could art transcendthe limits of its particularhistorical and class sourcesandspeakto men of all timesand all societies?To what extent could art be consciouslyand deliberatelycontrolled either by the artist himself or by an outside authority?What precisely were the functionsand purposeof art? Severalspecific commentsof Marxand Engels on literatureand

I R. A. Maguire, Red Virgin Soil: Soviet Literature in the 1920s (Princeton, 1968), p. 85.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

_Z

w5

art indicatethe answersthey might have suggested to some of these questions. First, Marx and Engels apparentlyconsideredliterature and other productsof the intellect to be indirectly and ultimately, rather than directly and immediately,determinedby the economic and political structureof society.2Marxnoted, for example,the unZ even developmentof art and society: "It is well known that certain periods of the highest development of art stand in no direct connection with the general developmentof society, nor with the materialbasis and the skeletonstructureof its organization. Witnessthe Greeksas comparedwith the modem nations or even Shakespeare.3 In addition,Marxand Engels apparentlydisengagedartisticmerit from ideologicalpurposeand effectiveness.There is no evidence in theirwritingsthat Marxor Engels consideredart a purelyideological tool orvaluedit as such.RufusMathewson cites, for example,Engels's criticismof the novel Old and New: the author,MinnaKautsky,has violated the integrity of her story by "publiclydeclaring [her] convictions .. . [and by] bearing witness to them before the whole

If world."4 political correctnessis desirable,open tendentiousnessis and in any case, as Mathewsonillustrates,5 Marxand Engels renot, peatedly stressed that a work of art must in the end be measured or againstthe excellence of Shakespeare Rembrandtor Dante. The extent to which such specificreferencesof Marxand Engels to problemsof art and literaturewere disregarded the formulators by of socialistrealismwill be exploredlater. As Mathewsonis quick to point out,6 there is after all no theoretical obstacle in Marxismto prevent the enforcedparticipationof the artist in political struggle and sacrifice.The developmentof the whole, integrated,and manysided humanbeing, the implicit"objective" the dialecticoperating of in history,must be precededby the disciplinedand ruthless"interim the man," individualwholly committedto the militantproletariat and for some indefinite period of time to suspend his private willing morality and personal explorationof the universe for the sake of
2 This essay is indebted to R. J. Mathewson, The Positive Hero in Russian Literature, 2d ed. (Stanford, 1975) for compiling the following excerpts from the writings of Marx and Engels. 3 K. Marx and F. Engels, Literature and Art (New York, 1947), p. 18, quoted in Mathewson, Positive Hero, p. 121. 4 Ibid., p. 45, quoted in Mathewson, Positive Hero, p. 128. 5 Mathewson, Positive Hero, pp. 129-31. 6 Ibid., p. 147.

56

The Russian Review

advancingcollective justice and history itself. In comparisonwith the weight of the Marxistethic demandingallegianceto the immediate revolutionary task (as Mathewsonphrasesit: "To act in concert with the embattledproletariatis the only truly compellingobligation of modernlife; all others are illusory,immoral,or antisocial"7), the protectionsupon literaturewithin Marx'swritings seem at best frail and informalmeasuresof good taste. As the process of literarydebate among Marxistsevolved in the Soviet Union after the Revolution,these quiet buttressesagainst an entirely politicized literaturewere in fact thrown aside. Although many of the early Bolsheviks,including Plekhanov,Lunacharskii, were, like Marxand Engels themselves,men Trotskii,and Voronskii, broadlyeducatedin the Westernculturaltradition,men who shared a respect for the writer and the special problemsof artisticproduction, the mood in the Soviet Union of iconoclasm and crisis, the accessionof the semi-literateto power, and the Bolshevikemphasis aspectof Marxist theoryeventuallycombined upon the revolutionary to favor the use of literature as a purely political and ideological instrument. Propelled by the urgency to replace literature of the prerevolutionary politicaland socialorderwith a literaturethat reflected and andpromotedthe new socialrelationships idealsof Sovietsociety, Russianliterarycritics and theoristsbegan to stress one side or the other of Marx'stwo-prongedapproachto human experience:Marx the of the philosopher, interpreter the world,as opposedto Marxthe One side stressedliterature's andmakerof history.8 aesthetic, agitator objective,and descriptivecomponent;the other stressedutilitarian, selective, and tendentiouselements.On the one hand, literaturewas to be analytic;on the other,agitational.9 The seminal spokesmenfor these viewpoints are generally consideredto be Plekhanovand Lenin. The general lines of their arguments may be tracedthroughsuch writersas Trotskiiand Voronskii, and Timofeev and Gor'kii.Each group claimed its theories to be
7 Ibid., p. 145. 8 Ibid., pp. 115-9. 9 The conflict is expressed in similar terms in E. J. Brown, The ProletarianEpisode in Russian Literature,1928-1932 (New York, 1953), p. 98; Mathewson, Positive Hero, p. 119; and E. J. Simmons,"Introduction:Soviet Literatureand Controls,"in Through the Looking Glass of Soviet Literature:Views of Russian Society, ed. E. J. Simmons (New York, 1953), p. 8.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

57

but consistentwith Marxism, becauseeach groupchose to emphasize oppositeaspectsof the Marxianduality,their positionson such matters as the form and purposeof literaturewere radicallyopposed. The Soviet RussianLiteraryDebate: Plekhanov,Trotskii,Lenin Writerand critic GeorgiiPlekhanovwas one of the first Russians systematicallyto apply the Marxistdialectic to problemsof artistic production and analysis. Acclaimed until the early 1930s as the Marxistauthorityon aesthetics,Plekhanovlaid the groundwork for subsequentMarxistcritics and sharplyperceived both the possibilities and dangers of the Marxist approach to literary theory and criticism. Plekhanov'scryptic definitionof art serves as an introductionto wrote Plekhanov, that activity through "is his aesthetictheory."Art," which men exchange their feelings with one anotherby means of Three aspects of art may thus be identified:art is a living images."10 social phenomenon;art conveys something;and art is expressedin images.These three ideas formthe structureof Plekhanov's analysis. would assent to these generalobservations, upon All Marxists but the finerpoints of the analysisthe unanimityfounders.The manner in which society'smode of productiondeterminesits artisticexpression is disputed among Marxists,as is the extent to which economic processes immediatelyand directly affect cultural activity. In one brief but most significantcomment,Plekhanovpresented his viewpoint on this question,an opinionlater challengedby the proponents of socialistrealism:". .. [T]hereis a causal-though not alwaysdirect -connection between the developmentof art and the development If of the productive forces."11 the relationshipbetween economic and artisticdevelopmentwas a complexand subtle one, organization if changesin economicpatternsdid not necesarilyproducedirect and predictablechangesin artisticcreation,there emergedthe possibility that the formandcontentof artproducedin a countrymovingtoward socialismcould not necessarilybe expected at once and obviouslyto of reflectthe transformation society. The second focus of Plekhanov'sdefinition of art, art's content,
10 G. Plekhanov, "Konspektylektsii po iskusstvo," in Literatunoe nasledie G. V. Plekhanova, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1934-40), 2:118. 11G. Plekhanov, "FirstLetter,"in UnaddressedLetters, trans. A. Fineberg (Moscow, 1953), p. 118.

58

The Russian Review

likewise provideda basis for subsequentMarxistinvestigationsinto the nature and role of art. Plekhanovwas quick to establishthe intellectual componentof the "feelings" conveyedby art and handled quite interchangeably the terms "feelings," "sentiments,"and was a meansof intellectualcommunica"ideas."12 to Plekhanov, Art, as there could exist no art without a social origin and class tion; just Morebasis, there could exist no art that did not embody an idea.13 over, not only did an artisticproductioninevitablybear a meaning, a concept, but its content directly affected its artisticworth.'4 of What Plekhanovwould have considered"weightiness content," that factor which he felt ultimatelydeterminedthe merit of an artistic work, was never explicitly defined, but one may reasonably who expressmerely concludefromhis criticismof the impressionists, rather than human emotion and the "outerhusk of appearances" thought,fromhis mockeryof the introspectiveartistabsorbedin the of "extremesubjectiveness" his private, "fantastic,transcendental and fromhis view that a person'sideas are both "determined world," and enriched" his relationsto the world and without that contact by that with social reality will suffer from "an inherent vacuity,"15 human social relationshipsand "weighty"ideas necessarilyportray the concretestrugglesin the real world.To summarize, content of an artistic work was an inevitable component of its being, the final source of its aesthetic worth, and a reflectionof the artist'ssocial practice. cautioncontendedthat form and conPlekhanovwith remarkable are linked by a clear and linear causality. He emphatically tent realism: if an artist's favored a narrowvariety of representational depiction of, say, a "womanin blue" resembledthe woman, then it was, in Plekhanov'sview, a good painting. The "living images"of good art were by definitionboth realistic and representational. Plekhanov'sacceptance of the fundamentalunity of form and content and of the determiningforce of the latter is nowheremore explicitlypresentedthanin his well-knownstudyof the literarycritic, whose dual task was to determineboth the "sociological equivalent"
12 G. Plekhanov, Art and Social Life, trans. A. Fineberg (Moscow, 1953), p. 172. 13Ibid., p. 171. 14Ibid., pp. 172, 188, 200. 15Ibid., pp. 211-12, 201, 213.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

59

of a given work of art and its aesthetic worth. The critic'sfirst duty in evaluating an artistic productionwas to clarify precisely what social or class consciousness was expressedin that workand to translate the idea of the given work"fromthe language of art to the language of sociology."His second task was to evaluate the work's artistic qualities, for "sociologymust not close the door on aesthetics."16 Robert Maguirepoints out, however, the literarycritic is As in effect doing no more than performing same operationtwice.17 the If content neatly determinesform and if correctideas are ultimately with artisticmerit,then the independentanalysisof the synonymous and craftsmanship purely aesthetic qualities of an artisticwork can no meaning. have From the precedingsummaryof Plekhanov's concept of form and contentin artit might seem that he was one of the moreconservative of Marxistliterary critics: he stressed the strict evaluation of art accordingto correct ideational content, profferedan almost casual and technique, and applauded disrespectfor artistic craftsmanship the limitationof artisticthemes to realisticand objectivesocial relationships. However, it would do a real injustice to the depth of Plekhanov'sthought to conclude the discussionof his approachto literatureand art at this point. Plekhanov's and qualifications restrictions on his theory of the genesis and development,the content and form of art are at least as importantas the theoriesthemselves. Plekhanovconsistentlyrejected all forms of tendentiousnessand dogmatismin art. He distinguishedwith great insight the difference between the collective and the individualuse of art. Enjoymentof art,he claimed,is ultimatelybeneficialto the humanrace, to society as a whole, but an individualcontemplatinga worthy piece of art never consciouslyconsidersits benefits either to himself or to society.18

Plekhanovrepudiatedthe claim Second,and of equal importance, of an inherentand undeniable"obligation" "duty" art and artist or of to promote particularpolitical objectives.Whether or not art was viewed in a particularsociety as an end in itself or as a means to an
16 G. Plekhanov, "Predislovie k tret'emu izdaniiu sbornika 'Za dvadtsat' let'," in Literaturai estetika, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1958), 1:123. 17 Maguire, Red Virgin Soil, p. 76. s Plekhanov, "Fifth Letter," in Unaddressed Letters, pp. 110-11.

60

The Russian Review

end ultimatelydependedupon the social and historicalconditionsof that society.l9As the conditionsof time and place changed,attitudes of mind would change accordingly. AlthoughPlekhanovreadily admittedhis concern that the social in conditionsbe createdwhich would result in the expression art of sentimentsto which he was sympathetic,he neverthelesssuspended the impositionof his aesthetic tastes upon the artistsof all peoples and all times. In any case, art was not open to forcible external or management directive.20 view observedthat the "utilitarian" of artprevailswhere Plekhanov there existsa mutualsolidaritybetween the artistand a largepart of out view when art is "hopelessly of harmony" society and the "pure" Thereis one other situationin which the environment. with its social Plekhanov remark formerview of arttakeshold,andin one cautionary what serves as a grimprophecyof future developmentsin provided the Soviet Union: "Politicalauthorityalways prefersthe utilitarian view of art, to the extent, of course,that it pays any attentionto art at all.. . And since political authority,althoughsometimesrevolutionary,is most often conservativeand even reactionary,it will be seen that it would be wrong to think that the utilitarianview of art or is shared principallyby revolutionaries, by people of advanced mind generally.21 In sum, Plekhanovbalanced his argument supporting art of a narrowlyrealistic and socially relevant nature with his admonition that personalaesthetic tastes or political moralitycould not be successfully imposed upon art by fiat. Art was finally inaccessible to external directive, and the less it was expressed in a logical and didactic manner,the better. threebasic theoriesregardingthe natureand function Plekhanov's of literatureand art were eventuallyadoptedand furtherdeveloped and by severalof the mostprominent persuasiveSovietliterarycritics and were applied to the particularproblemsof postof the 1920s sometimesratherabstract Russianculture.Plekhanov's revolutionary concerningsuch questionsas the proper content of generalizations
19Plekhanov, Art and Social Life, pp. 152-53. 20 See, for example, G. Plekhanov, "Isskusstvo i zhizn'," in Iskusstvo i literatura (Moscow, 1948), p. 297, and "Iskusstvoi obshchestvennaia zhizn'," in Literaturnoe nasledie G. V. Plekhanova,3:201. 21 Plekhanov, Art and Social Life, p. 164.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

61

art, the relative value of the aesthetic and ideological components of art, or the extent to which art may be externally governed, assumed an immediate and specific urgency. Should the pre-revolutionary bourgeois culture, impregnated as it was with a reactionary class consciousness, be discarded in toto? Were proletarian writers the only legitimate spokesmen for the new age? Should the artistic expression of the fellow-travellers and other writers only tentatively committed to the Revolution be silenced or encouraged? To what extent should art be monitored for its correct ideological allegiance? Lev Trotskii, author of the now-famous Literatura i revoliutsiia (Literature and revolution) (1925), addressed many of these issues and provided some of the most interesting and insightful commentaries produced by any literary critic, Marxist or not, upon the interaction between literature and politics, two spheres of human activity which he confessed in 1935 to "constitute in essence the content of my personal life."22 Trotskii's approach to literature was in many ways similar to that of Plekhanov. Like Plekhanov, Trotskii assumed that both culture and social classes grow directly out of the process of man's struggle with nature for survival. He defined culture in two ways: in the broad sense, culture was all that is created, conquered, and constructed by human effort, a social and historical phenomenon indissolubly linked to its material setting. Moreover, as long as a society remained class-divided, its culture would serve as a basic instrument of class oppression. As Marx observed, the ruling ideas (and, added Trotskii, the ruling culture) of an epoch are in essence the ideas of that epoch's ruling class.23Trotskii's second definition of culture was more narrow: culture was "a developed and completely harmonious system of knowledge and of art in all material and spiritual fields of It work."24 was in his discussions of proletarian art and culture that Trotskii tended to favor this second, more limited definition of the term. Although he believed that all bourgeois art was imbued with the
22 L. Trotslki, from a diary of 1935, quoted in P. N. Siegel, ed., Leon Trotsky on Literatureand Art (New York, 1970), p. 7. 23 L. Trotskii, "Kul'turai sotsializm," in Sochineniia, 21 vols. (Moscow, 1924-27), vol. 21, Problemy kul'tura (1927), pp. 424-25. 24 L. Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. Rose Strunsky (New York, 1925), p. 24.

62

The Russian Review

class exploitationof bourgeoissociety, and althoughhe was deeply sympatheticto and activelyengagedin the strugglefor Communism, Trotskiineverthelessdeclaredthat the old artmustnot be eliminated that ideologicalcorbut must ratherbe masteredand democratized, rectness was no substitute for artistic excellence, that free artistic of expression all literaryschoolsnot openly hostile to the Revolution and shouldbe encouraged supported, and,perhapsmost significantly, that there was and could be no such thing as a "proletarian culture," not in the strictsense of the term.Trotskiisarguments significant are only in the context of his impact upon the Russianliterarydebate of the 1920s and his consolidationand elaborationof Plekhanov's to theoriesbut in relationship the largerquestionof the possibilityof Marxistoutlookupon the integratingor reconcilinga revolutionary, world with a respectfor a freely exploratory, analytic,and personal literatureand art. By examiningTrotskii'sattitudes to literatureand art, one can trace the logic through which he reached the general conclusions to describedabove. His argumentsevidence two approaches literary of art, its political and aesthetic theory: an analysisof the nature elements,and an analysisof the conditionsin which fine art may be produced. The study of Trotskii'sapproach to the nature of art must be recognitionthat the 1917Revoluprefacedby notinghis enthusiastic tion had had a momentousimpactupon the developmentof Russian culture. He explicitly supportedart which attempted to serve the Revolution,to influenceand to elevate the masses,to impel them to of action, and he even went so far as to describethe characteristics is realistic,active, vitally collectivist,and filled with the new art: "It a limitlesscreativefaith in the Future."25 Trotskii, however, always managed, to a degree unknown to ideoPlekhanov,carefullyand consistentlyto disengage literature's value. For all his elaboratepraise of logical content from its artistic who Russia" DemianBiednyi,for example,"thepoet of revolutionary was producing"aliteraturevitally needed by an awakenedpeople," the Trotskiiwas nonethelesscapable of appraising poet's workfrom "... [T]hereis also muchof the an aestheticallyobjectivestandpoint: newspaperat that."26 newspaperin him, of a daily, second-rate
25 Ibid., p. 15. 26 Ibid., pp. 212-14.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

63

In Trotskii's more than a simple tool of view, art was substantially class oppressionor liberationwhich could be evaluatedsolely on the basis of its sociologicalcontext or ideological content. He claimed, rather,that art must be judged in the first place accordingto quite and separatecriteria,accordingto its achievementsin craftsmanship form.27Trotskiiwas a good deal more precise than Plekhanovin distinguishingthe materialistor sociologicalapproachfrom the formal approachto art.The one did not deny the other,nor was the one sufficient without the other. as of The implications this approachto art were enormous, Trotskii himself recognized. For one thing, bourgeois art, despite its class conservatism,could be appreciatedfor its technical and aesthetic achievementsas well as for its insights into the human condition. AlthoughTrotskiinever discussedin detail the relationshipbetween an economicstructurein the process of radicalchange and the cultural activity of the society in which that change was occurring,he note the complexityof the relationship did, like Plekhanov, ("Artistic creationis alwaysa complicatedturninginside-outof the old forms, underthe influenceof new stimuliwhich originateoutside of art"28), and concludedthat, at least in times of socialand economicupheaval, and the appropriation assimilationof what was significantin earlier cultureswas a necessaryprerequisitefor the creationof a new culture. A second implicationof Trotskii's regardfor aesthetic worth was the demand it placed upon those attempting to create proletarian works of art. No matter how ideologicallyvirtuousproletarianartworks might strive to be, they should never become artistically those who were satisfiedwith a "pock-marked" were art second-rate; of the masses.In a distinctionfor which he generallycontemptuous would laterbe severelycriticized,Trotskiinoted that many, although art not all, worksof proletarian had merit solely as culturaland historicalratherthan artisticdocuments.29 These arguments regardingthe aestheticand politicalcharacterof to call for the criticalassimilation bourgeoisculture of art led Trotskii of and for only a reservedappreciation the worksof most proletarian
27 See, for example, Trotsky, "Classand Art," in Siegel, Leon Trotsky on Literature and Art, p. 76, and Literatureand Revolution, pp. 179-81. 28 Trotsky, Literatureand Revolution, p. 197. 29 Ibid., p. 202.

64

The Russian Review

writers.His argumentsrelatingto the conditionsin which fine art is of producedsuggestedto him the impossibility creatinga proletarian in the sense of cultureas a society'sorganicand unifiedsysculture, tem of knowledge. Trotskii presentedseveralmaterialandpsychicconditionsessential to the generationof true art. In an echo of Plekhanov,he observed that true artrequiresa situationof materialsurplus,even abundance, and a long periodof experimentation maturation.3The fact that and time and physicaland spiritualenergy are indispensable the proto ductionof artunderlaythe generallypoorqualityof the artproduced in the strugglesof the Revolution. Not only did these basic conditionsfor a healthy artisticenvironment limit of necessity the flourishingof art during the process of revolution,they also eliminatedthe possibilityof creatinga specificculture.Trotskiirepeatedlyemphasizedin Literatura ally proletarian i revoliutsiiathe impermanence the proletariandictatorshipand of the fact that its brief existencewould be occupiedin the strugglefor gaining and strengtheningpower. Unlike all the ruling classes prewould rapidlydissolve itself as a ceding it in history,the proletariat class as it became progressivelymore protected from political and militarythreats.31Althoughin the meantimea few talentedproletarian writers would produce some fine works of art, these isolated achievementswould not in themselvesconstitutea culture,that "orthe ganic sum of knowledgeand capacitywhich characterizes entire Proletarian writerswould elevate or at least its rulingclass."32 society, the masses and preparethe way for the future socialistculture,but would be too brief to allow the tenureof the proletarian dictatorship culture. the developmentof a specificallyproletarian of for his realisticappraisal the elementsmandatory the Becauseof creation of art, and because of his not so realisticfaith in the provisionalnatureof the proletarian dictatorshipand the willingnessof the new-formedSoviet bureaucracyvoluntarilyto immolate itself, Trotskiirecommendedin this "transitional" period the free expression of literarygroupssympatheticto the Revolutionand their selfdeterminationin the field of art. This "transitional" which was art,
30 See, for example, Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, pp. 9-10, 184, and Plekhanov, "Third Letter," in Unaddressed Letters, pp. 96-99. 31 Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, pp. 14, 184-85.
32 Ibid., p. 200.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

65

"moreor less organicallyconnected with the Revolution,but which would be [was] not at the same time the art of the Revolution,"33 created not only by workersbut by membersof the intelligentsia. Although the latter class did not yet have a correct and rigorous in politicalperspective,its accomplishments techniqueand form,and its role of contemplator the political strugglein fact allowed it to of than that create a "betterartisticreproductionof the Revolution"34 generallyachievedby the workers. At the same time, however,as a memberof the revolutionary government,Trotskiicontended that the state must apply a "political, standard to art, that it must censor imperative and intolerant"35 tendencies in art and forego a liberal overtly counter-revolutionary of laissez-faire. the one hand there was to be "abroadand On policy flexiblepolicy in the field of art,"but only within "awatchfulrevoluOr tionarycensorship."36 again, the variousartisticschoolsin Russia in were to be allowed "completefreedom of self-determination the field of art," but only "after putting before them the categorical As standardof being for or against the Revolution."37 Trotskiiobin the workof culture-bearing of promotingthe Revoluand served, tion "the standardis a political one, and not an abstract cultural one."38 the time being, at least, the two standardsdid not coFor and the formertook precedence. incide, Trotskii's effortto develop a coherent Marxistevaluationof literature and art and his struggle to locate a balance between genuine commitmentand a respectfor the personalfreedomof revolutionary the artist provokedhostility from many sides. Party members oba jected to his claimthat artwas neitherentirelynorprimarily vehicle for ideologicaleducation;governmentbureaucrats resistedhis assertion that fine art could not be producedready-madeaccordingto the fractionof the proletariat needs of the state; the ultra-revolutionary imbuedwith political"correctinsistedthat theirartisticproductions ness"were of higherqualityand of greaterimportancethan anything could produce. that the intelligentsiaor fellow-travellers
33 Ibid., Ibid., 35 Ibid., 36 Ibid., 37 Ibid., 38 Ibid.,
34

p. p. p. p. p. p.

56. 217. 221. 22. 14. 220.

66

The Russian Review

Trotskiiwas not the only target of such attacks;his theorieswere by generallyacceptedand propounded a small,loosely-knitgroupof literarycritics and writerswho, in their turn, were also accused of deviationfrom a truly Marxistapproachto art. Althoughthere were several strikingdifferencesin emphasisand tone among these individuals, as has alreadybeen noted in the example of Trotskiiand all Plekhanov,these commentators shareda respectfor the aesthetic, personal,and class-transcending componentof literatureand art and derivedtheirviews in the mainfromthe writingsof Plekhanov. After consideringin some detail the complexviews of Plekhanov and Trotskii,it is somewhatunsettlingto turn to the comparatively casualand simplelogic of theirprincipalopponent,Lenin.Lenin did not pretendto have any specialknowledgeor appreciation art;the of few articlesfromhis voluminous writingsthat are devoted to authors and problemsof imaginativeliterature-a few shortessayson Tolstoi and a tribute to proletarianculture-have but slight significanceas to Lenin had contributions the historyof Marxistliterarycriticism.39 his little to say aboutliterature; tremendous very impactuponliterary historyis ratherto be found in the realm of politics, in the groundwork he laid for the identificationof the "tasks" literaturewith of in his insistencethat the party rigorouslycontrol ideological goals, literaryoutput. It was scarcelyeight years after Lenin'sdeath that as he replacedPlekhanov the officially acclaimedauthority literary on matters,and since 1932he has been repeatedlycited as the sourceof the officialSovietapproach art, socialistrealism. to Whereas Plekhanovand Trotskiiattributedto literaturea sociopoliticalcomponentand a purelyaestheticcomponentand struggled to determineand assess accuratelythe potential contradictionbetween the two within the unity of a literarywork, Lenin did not acknowledgethe operationof any such dialecticwithin art. Art was instantlysimplified:there was now no need to separatean author's social attitudes and convictionsfrom his artistic representationof
reality.40 Lenin's "Lev Tolstoi kak zerkalo russkoi revoliutsii" (Lev

Tolstoias a mirrorof the Russianrevolution),one of his rarearticles addressedspecificallyto the subjectof literature,illustratesthis one-

39 G. Struve, Soviet Russian Literature (London, 1935), p. 174. 40 See, for example, N. K. Krupskaia, "Lenin i Chernyshevskii,"in O literature i iskusstve (Moscow, 1967), p. 633.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

67

dimensionalapproachto art. Tolstoi was evaluated solely from a socio-historical point of view: his greatnessand originalityresided in exclusivelyin the fact that he expressedthe contradictions Russian life, thathe protestedagainstcapitalism,that he recognizedthe peasant bourgeoiselementsof the revolutionary movement.41 Lenin was in effect reducingliteratureto nothingmorethan a sourceof ideological information.Literaturewas to be evaluated according to its content,its social and politicalmeaning,and the significanceor very existenceof its artisticaspect was to be ignored.Plekhanov's "socioin interpretingart, logical equivalent,"that critic'spreliminary step now became the only operationappropriate artisticevaluation. to The aestheticdebate between the "Plekhanovists" the "Leninand ists"is complicatedby the fact that Plekhanovand his followersalso gave tremendousweight to the role of content in determiningthe worthof a piece of art.Plekhanovclaimedthat a work'sartisticmerit was ultimatelyfixedby the worthof its contentand that "falseideas" would impart"inherentcontradictions" a work of art and detract to from its aestheticvalue. Plekhanov's method of aesthetic evaluation was consequentlyclosely related to, even dependent upon, his evaluationof the politicalor ideationalcontent of the artisticworkunder consideration.It might therefore be argued with justificationthat Plekhanovnever satisfactorilysolved the problem of determining standardsof aesthetic evaluationthat are differentbut not wholly independentfrom the standardsapplied in the sociological or historicalevaluation.Since Lenin ignored the aesthetic evaluationand Plekhanovmade the aestheticevaluationvirtuallysynonymouswith the sociological,was there then in the last analysisany fundamental between the two groupson the natureof literatureand disagreement art? The differenceis critical to an appreciationof what each group represented.Although Plekhanovformulatedonly a partial and inadequate method for judging literatureartistically,he at least explicitly recognizedthe fact that art'saestheticcomponentis integral to its being and that this aesthetic meaning is not the same as the work'sideologicalmeaning.Plekhanov's method of literarycriticism was composednot of one step, but two; the fact that the second was
41 V. Lenin, "Lev Tolstoi kak zerkalo russkoi revoliutsii,"in O literature i iskusstve, p. 218.

68

The Russian Review

virtuallyderivedfromthe firstdoes not alterthe fact that Plekhanov at least felt compelled to account for art's aesthetic componentin someway. It is unfortunate the developmentof a coherentMarxisttheory for of aestheticsthatTrotskii, who managedmorethanany otherRussian Marxist,including Plekhanov,to distinguishartistic from political values and to recognizethat the criticmust applysomekind of strictly formal analysisin his evaluationof an artisticproduction,never presentedin detail a single, unifiedprocessof literarycriticism.Perhaps this was as he intended;perhapshe meant to suggest that the Marxistand formalistapproaches art could never be combinedin to one operationwithout doing violence to one or the other but should evalinstead be applied alternatelyas separateand complementary uations. Rather than attempting to integrate aesthetics into the Trotskiiseemed to be content to admit that the science of Marxism, Marxianworld view is but one approachto interpretinghuman experienceandwas willingto leave aestheticanalysisbeyondthe realm of its investigation. Lenin was hardly concernedwith such complicatedissues in his evaluationof the nature of literatureand art. His primarytask was practical and compelling: to arouse and focus the energies of the in society. To this end proletariat its struggleto create a Communist it was necessaryto subordinateall personalinterests,even private morality:all choices, ideas, and actions were now to be evaluated to entirelyupon their relationship the ongoingclass struggle.Art, as of of both a mirror humanexperienceand a generator action,was not from the thoroughpoliticizing of all aspects of individual exempt and social life. Art was to be immediatelyintelligibleto the masses and unilaterallycorrectideologically.If it was necessaryto sacrifice in certain artisticdevices-complexity of form, experimentation lanand style, subtlety or ambiguityof meaning-it was of little guage consequenceprovided that each artistic productioncommunicated the correctideas. Above all, art was now accountableto the progressive movement of history or, to be more specific, to the Bolshevik party. It is on this last point, the degree to which art may be held liable to the policies and ideology of party and government,that the Plekhanovistsand Leninists most openly clashed. Plekhanov and

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

69

Trotskiiconsistentlyand emphaticallyrepudiatedthe deliberateininto art and any all-out attempt to control jection of tendentiousness art by decree and directive.AlthoughLenin'sattitude to this question was somewhat more ambiguous,the weight of his logic and, finally, of his own action does suggest that he welcomed the subordinationof cultural activity to the dictates of the Central Committee. Lenin's1905article"Partiinaia i organizatsiia partiinaialiteratura" and party literature)is invariablypresented by (Party organization Soviet and Westerncriticsas the key to his approachto partyregulation of artisticexpression, just how best to interpretthe articleis but a matterof some controversyand speculation.On the one hand, the article may be construedas the logical basis for the permanentand rigorousinterventionof the party in literaryaffairs.Lenin advocated the principleof partiinost', concept roughlytranslatableas "partya the consistentreferralto party policy as the inspirationand ness," thus requiredthe strict submissionof all guide to action. Partiinost' Social Democraticwriters to party control. In addition, Lenin reinserted the moral imperativeinto literature,that social "duty"reHe jected by the Plekhanovists. likewiseposited a peculiardefinition of literaryfreedom. The "freedom" participatein and reflect on to the ability to explore and express revolutionarythought replaced without restrictionindividualbeing and experience,an ability that Lenin decried as "bourgeois-anarchist individualism." Finally, Lenin was surprisingly about what exactly he meant by the term sketchy and literatura,a Russianword which includesboth journalism imaginative literature.42 This obscurity,whether deliberate or not, permitted the dominationof the party in the area of artisticexpression as well as of factualreportingand politicalanalysis. On the other hand, perhaps Lenin intended the article to be interpretedin a more narrowfashion as applying only to party literature and its subordinationto party control. Perhaps one should that "[t]hereis no questionthat literature accept Lenin'sadmonitions is least of all subjectto mechanicaladjustment levelling,to the rule or of the majorityover the minority"and that a "greaterscope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative, individual inclina42

Mathewson, Positive Hero, p. 157.

70

The Russian Review

It tion, thought and feeling, form and content."43 is a puzzlingbusito try to incorporate these qualifications the thrust into ness, though, of his argumentwhich so emphaticallydemanded absolute party in jurisdiction the field of literature.In a few pages Lenin managed to makehis intentionsmagnificently ambiguous. Lenin's sentimentsas to the proper relationshipof the party to literature are more clearly expressedin two documents which he kul'ture" wrote or drafted in 1920. "0 proletarskoi (On proletarian in 1920 and published six years later, presented culture), written Lenin's dictum that all organizationsengaged in cultural activity classstruggle."44 "must penetrated be with the spiritof the proletarian A second document,the CentralCommittee'sresolution"O Proletkul'takh" the Proletkults), draftedby Lenin in 1920, established (On in what fashion officiallegislationwould supplementthe process of education and experienceout of which proletarianculture was to seekingto create a proletardevelop: no Sovietculturalorganization ian art would be permitted independencefrom the Central Committee. It is thus clear that Lenin both initiated and firmly supported under the jurisdiceffortsto place Soviet proletarianorganizations measuresto tion of the party. Still, he did not legislate far-reaching writers.Neitherdid he controlthe literaryoutput of non-proletarian to convert his conservativepersonaltastes into law. Such attempt party interventionin literaryaffairsbegan only after his death, and the whetheror not Leninwould have supportedor undertaken comof plete subordination literatureto the partyis thereforea matterof speculation.However,it must be noted that it is upon the Leninist principlesof partiinost'and the primacyof politics over aesthetics that subsequentpartypolicy was built and that in 1920the partydid not have the power to enforceliterarycompliancewith its policies that it wouldhave eight andtwelve yearslater.Seenin this light there is a notable continuityof party policies from 1920 to 1934, policies which finally culminatedin the officialadoption,in Lenin'sname, of the theoryof socialistrealism.
43 V. Lenin, "PartyOrganizationand Party Literature,"in Lenin and Books, comp. A. Z. Okorokov(Moscow, 1971), p. 15. 44 Lenin, "0 proletarskoikul'ture,"in O literature i iskusstve, p. 454.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

71

SocialistRealism:Political Contextand Theory The formulationand official adoption of socialist realism in the Soviet Union cannotbe explainedmerelyby examiningthe theoretical debate of the 1920s. The study of these theories will reveal the basic issues which most troubledand divided Marxistliterarycritics of the period and the kinds of logical argumentswhich each side presentedto define and justify its position.But socialistrealismwas not adoptedas the officialSoviet theoryof literaturebecause its proponents were more persuasivein their logic or more thoughtful in their analysis.Socialistrealismwas officiallyrecognizedby the state and party of the Soviet Union because it was politically useful to these state and party intereststo do so. The single most importantextra-artistic influenceupon the course and outcomeof the literarydebate of the 1920swas the Communist party. Althoughthe party itself did not contributeto the content of the theories,norto the care,refinement, weight of theirarguments, or its moraland materialimpactupon the expressionand dissemination of literary theories and upon their acceptance by the public was tremendous.The party's abiding interest in literature'sideological usefulness, its distrust of the free competition of various literary groupsand schools,its demandfor increasedmilitancyand topicality in literaryproductions, its maneuversfirstto guide and finallyto and administerthe literaryorganizations themselvesdirectlyaffectednot only the vitality but ultimatelythe very existence of the public debate concerningthe natureand functionof literature. Althougha numberof individualsand literaryorganizations (most Leopold Averbakhand the membersof the RussianAssocinotably ation of Proletarian Writers,and the Perevalistgroup) continued to contest issues of literarytheory into the early 1930s, the period of and debate effectivelyended in 1928 following the open exploration from the party of Trotskyand his followers and the initiexpulsion ation of the firstFive-Year-Plan. Beginningwith the 1928 resolution "Obobsluzhivanii knigoimassovogochitatelia" the servingof the (On massreaderwith literature), attitudesto literaturebecame simparty and uncompromising. questionof the nature The ple, unambiguous, and function of literature,the subject that had animated and informed the literarydebate of the 1920s,was now officiallyresolved.

72

The Russian Review

Literature's naturewas ideological-in fact, literaturewas ideology, its functionwas that of any otherweapon: to serve,to act, to do and battle. The enforcedconformity Sovietwritersand criticsto these of tenets was finalizedin 1934at the FirstAll-UnionCongressof Soviet Writers;the principles of socialist realism that were fervently endorsed at the conferencehave more or less dominatedSoviet literature and criticismever since. The theoryof socialistrealismwas the continuation crystallizaand tion,or, as SovietcriticLeonidTimofeevput it, the "generalization"45 of the Leninist view of literarymatters. Many of the fundamental mustteach featuresof socialistrealism-the convictionthat literature that literand inspire the masses in the principlesof Communism, and the people (narodnost') ature must serve the party (partiinost') were directly traced to Lenin's article "Partiinaiaorganizatsiiai No partiinaialiteratura." longer was Plekhanovconsideredthe auon aesthetics,noreven Marxand Engels;as RufusMathewson thority has pointed out, Zhdanovdid not even bother to mention Marxor Engels in his reviewof the 1946 Sovietliteraryscene.46 Severalof the componentsof socialist realismmay be examined more closely. First, the notions of "selectivity"and political and ideological "duty"dictated to literature which aspects of reality should be depicted and which should not. Radek, for example, was claimedthat to presentrealitywithout"discrimination" not realmeant to "Realism" ism but "the most vulgar kind of naturalism." select "fromthe point of view of what is essential,from the point of To view of guidingprinciples." illustratethis point he added,"Select all phenomenawhich show how the system of capitalismis being socialistrealism smashed....""47By selectingthe realityit portrayed, to discoverand disclose the developmentof Communism presumed and in Sovietsocietyandby the forceof inspiration exampleto hasten that development.From now on the task of literaturewas not the of cognitionof reality,the exploration humanexperience,the apprehension of a many-sidedand unpredictableuniverse,but the proset motionof a particular of politicalvalues and expectations. Second, the spokesmenfor socialistrealismclaimed that "revoluL. Timofeev, Osnovy teorii literatury(Moscow, 1963), p. 403. Mathewson, Positive Hero, p. 171. 47 K. Radek, "Speech in Answerto the Discussion,"in Problemsof Soviet Literature: Reports and Speeches of the First Soviet Writers'Congress(New York,n.d.), p. 181.
45 46

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

73

both reveals the directionand ultimate meantionaryromanticism" ing of reality and providesanswersto the fundamentalquestionsof humanlife. Fromnow on literaturewas to makeno attemptto reflect or to knowrealityas it is but to show whitherit presumably moving, is to see today in the light of the knowntomorrow.48 Therewas now no for the open-ended, the ambiguous,or the unresolved. The place universebecame a known quantity;the presentnothing but prelude and preparation an alreadyexaminedfuture. for Third, socialist realism was founded upon the assumed and enforced political and ideologicalunity of Soviet writers,a "singleness of aspiration,singlenessof ideas, singlenessof aim."49 Faitlful party not actual membership,was extolled. Conversely, loyalty, although the partywas to providestrictsupervisionof all Soviet writers. Not surprisingly, critical standardfor evaluatingany work of the literaturewas now wholly and frankly based solely upon political criteria.In Radek'swords, "Sinceliteratureis a reflectionof social life, the standardby which it should be judged is preciselythe attitude which it takes to the October Revolutionand fascism."50 Timofeev made some half-heartedattempts to recognize an aesthetic component of literature,but his "aestheticideal" was an entirely social and political phenomenon:its essence was "the idea of work and peace," and of the "strugglewith everything that hinders the forwardmovementof life."51 taskof the literarycritic was thereThe fore a single operation,the determinationof the "timeliness" an of artisticwork.The "aestheticideal"was entirely embodiedin the interests and aims of the Communistparty.52 the context of the In of wholesale incorporation imaginativeliteratureinto the fabric of it that partyand government, is rathersardonically the Westerncritic in our country is such enhanced imreads Zhdanov's boast: "Only
portance given to literature and to writers."53
48 See, for example, Radek, "ContemporaryWorld Literature and the Tasks of ProletarianArt," in Problems of Soviet Literature,p. 157, or Timofeev, Teoriia literatury: Osnovy nauki o literature (Moscow, 1948), p. 327. 49 "Introduction,"in Problems of Soviet Literature, p. 9. 50 Radek, "ContemporaryWorld Literature and the Tasks of Proletarian Art," in Problems of Soviet Literature, p. 74. s5 Timofeev, Osnovy teorii literatury,pp. 410, 411. 52 Timofeev, Teoriia literatury,p. 410. 53 A. A. Zhdanov, "Soviet Literature-The Richest in Ideas, The Most Advanced Literature,"in Problems of Soviet Literature, pp. 23-24.

74 Conclusion

The Russian Review

A final assessment of socialist realism as a Marxist theory of aesthetics depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Is socialist realism in fact consistent with or a logical development of Marxist theory? (2) If so, is it the only theory of aesthetics consistent with Marxism? The answer to the first question may be determined by a brief review of the comments of Marx and Engels upon art. The Marxist approach to literature focuses upon the interrelationships of art and society. It addresses literature as an expression of a specific class interest and psychology and as a vehicle for a particular ideology; it asks who writes literature, and for whom, and why. But Marx himself was careful to acknowledge the existence of a component of literature which is not accessible to this approach. He observed, for example, that the political correctness of a work of literature is not equivalent to its artistic merit. The implication, of course, is that the evaluation of the artistic merit of a work can only be accomplished by a second operation which is distinct from the first. And this second evaluation, which takes into account such factors as style, form, and craftsmanship, in some ways finally transcends the first. As Marx pointed out, it is against the aesthetic excellence of mankind's truly great writers that all works of literature must ultimately be measured. Marx appeared, in short, to be suggesting the limitations of the Marxist world view, that a Marxist analysis alone cannot account for all areas of human experience. As has already been discussed, the spokesmen for socialist realism make no attempt to distinguish the socio-political content of a work from its aesthetic merit; unlike Marx, they do not admit the existence of an autonomous aesthetic component of art. Another aspect of Marxism, the latent contradiction between Marx the interpreter and philosopher and Marx the agitator, must be considered. Whether the Marxist literary critic and theorist chooses to stress one side or the other of that duality to a large extent determines the kind of literature that he favors. Socialist realism, as a product of the Leninist school of literature, emphasizes the agitational aspect of Marx. Marx the agitator evidently recognized the necessity of a period of revolutionary struggle to which all personal, and presumably aesthetic, interests would have to be subordinated or sacrificed.

Toward a Marxist Theory of Aesthetics

75

In such a periodit would be appropriate regulateliterature,to use to it as an ideological tool, to infuse it with the correct political allegiance. In this limited sense socialistrealismmay be considereda legitimate and logical development of Marxism.Because socialist realismdoes not take into accountthe aestheticaspect of art and because it is so thoroughlyand militantlyan agent of political policy it and propaganda, may be arguedthat it is an aesthetic theory apto a transitionalperiod of political and cultural developpropriate ment. for Spokesmen socialistrealism,however,have never claimed that it is a transitionaltheory of artistic expression.It was, in fact, only after the "cornerto socialism"had supposedly been turned that socialistrealismwas instituted as the officialtheory of artistic production.It is in this sense that socialistrealismis a lopsided and incompleteversionof the whole Marxistaesthetic,for it remainsfixed to the concept of art as agitation.Despite the grandiloquencewith which it was unveiled,socialistrealismhas neverrepresentedor even encouragedthe floweringof humancreativepotential.Its proponents have neveradmittedthat socialistrealismis a theoryfor an embattled society, nor that Marxhimself cherishedboth the autonomyand the aestheticvalue of art. The answerto the second questionis implied by the development of the Sovietliterarydebate.Socialistrealismis not the only aesthetic the theory that can logically or organicallydevelop out of Marxism; Plekhanovistliterarygroup also struggledto work out a genuinely Marxistapproachto art, and it eventually evolved an aesthetic analysis quite differentfrom that defended by the Leninists.The Pleof khanovistsstressedthe interpretation Marxas primarilya philosof and interpreter humanexperience,but the consequentliteropher arytraditionthat they developedwas by no meanssimplythe reverse of that presentedby the Leninists.The Plekhanovists not ignore did the agitationalaspect of Marx and literature,as the Leninists had disregardedthe philosophicalside of Marx and the aesthetic comThe Plekhanovists ponent of literature. sought,rather,to accountfor and somehow to connect literature'ssociopoliticalfunction and its aesthetic being. The approachand analysisof Plekhanovand Trotskiihave been discussed.Of the two, Trotskiiwas perhaps the more creative and

76

The Russian Review

analysis courageous,and the truest to Marx'sown words: Trotskii's respected both the agitationaland cognitive functions of art and, like that of Marx,accordedto the latter an importanceand independence that no orthodoxSoviet critic would grant.Taken as a whole, the Plekhanovistapproachseems to this critic to be ultimatelyfar thanthat contributed the Leninmoreproductiveandimaginative by ists. Althoughthere are a numberof questionswhich the Plekhanovists did not confrontor entirelyresolve(for example,the relationship of economicto culturalchange),at least they began the long process of investigatingwhich elementsof cultureand art can and cannotbe accountedfor or evaluatedby Marxist methods,andfor what reasons.