Producing its own - rather than just reproducing others' - culture (through artefacts) has been the Achilles' Heel of the revolutionary left, whether of the communist or Trotskyist varieties. This is the core argument of my forthcoming book, 'Marxism in Music: Constructing a Communist Contra-Culture with The Redskins, Rock’n’roll and Revolution' (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/marxism-in-music-9798765140888/). Consequently, I find much to agree in the the statement that:
Political development is partly intellectual, but it’s also emotional, aesthetic, and social. An organisation that only develops the intellectual dimension will produce people who can analyse but can’t sustain themselves through difficulty. Culture sustains people. It builds the kind of solidarity that doesn’t evaporate when the external pressure intensifies.
In other words - my own words - culture is both a means and an end for communist revolutionaries but it must be communist culture which in all likelihood can only be produced and reproduced by communists.
In France, for example and as I argue in my book, neither the PCF nor Lutte Ouvriere engaged in the production of communist culture in their show piece fetes. The same is true of similar organisations in Italy. And these were the left parties most receptive to engaging in the cultural arena of struggle (the others being the economic, political and ideological and which they were engaged in as communists or Trotskyists).
I'm not sure if you've read Cliff Slaughter's book on the novel, but there's a real question of how far we can produce 'communist' culture outside of an upsurge that connects it with something dynamic and counter-cultural.
I've not so thanks and I take the point though it depends upon the scale of what we're talking about, whether at the micro, meso or macro. I was more thinking in the first instance of a culture for party members, supporters and the periphery around them.
Producing its own - rather than just reproducing others' - culture (through artefacts) has been the Achilles' Heel of the revolutionary left, whether of the communist or Trotskyist varieties. This is the core argument of my forthcoming book, 'Marxism in Music: Constructing a Communist Contra-Culture with The Redskins, Rock’n’roll and Revolution' (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/marxism-in-music-9798765140888/). Consequently, I find much to agree in the the statement that:
Political development is partly intellectual, but it’s also emotional, aesthetic, and social. An organisation that only develops the intellectual dimension will produce people who can analyse but can’t sustain themselves through difficulty. Culture sustains people. It builds the kind of solidarity that doesn’t evaporate when the external pressure intensifies.
In other words - my own words - culture is both a means and an end for communist revolutionaries but it must be communist culture which in all likelihood can only be produced and reproduced by communists.
In France, for example and as I argue in my book, neither the PCF nor Lutte Ouvriere engaged in the production of communist culture in their show piece fetes. The same is true of similar organisations in Italy. And these were the left parties most receptive to engaging in the cultural arena of struggle (the others being the economic, political and ideological and which they were engaged in as communists or Trotskyists).
I'm not sure if you've read Cliff Slaughter's book on the novel, but there's a real question of how far we can produce 'communist' culture outside of an upsurge that connects it with something dynamic and counter-cultural.
I've not so thanks and I take the point though it depends upon the scale of what we're talking about, whether at the micro, meso or macro. I was more thinking in the first instance of a culture for party members, supporters and the periphery around them.