Was the Cultural Revolution the Anti-Cultural Revolution

[Richard Nixon]

Discuss. Poll to follow.

[spice756]

No the problem with communism in China and the USSR was built after a cult leader

Dear Stalin are saver will give us food, clothing ,house and guide us to happies .

Dear Mao Zedong are saver will give us food, clothing ,house and guide us to happies

Other communists in China and the USSR are nothing more than privilege class that is in it for them self only and feel a reform to capitalism wil give more money . money coming from the US or otheer countries ,big businesses coming from other countries and would spit on name of communism just to get rich and live a privilege class .

Both USSR or China was run and control by leaders Stalin ,Mao Zedong or misters in the CP.The working class had no say or power.The misters in the CP where just like evile CEO's that spit on the working class to have a privilege life.

[Robert]

From what I understand of it, 無產階級文化大革命 does not contain the word "anti" any where in it. So I would say no. It was "merely" the "Proletarian Cultural Great Revolution."

But the revolution was anti-bourgeois and everything that came with it, including art work, porcelain, churches, attitudes, values, etc. Does that make it anti-cultural in effect? I'd say yes.

[khad]

How's that for inscrutability?
How's that for Orientalist racism?

[JohannGE]

But the revolution was anti-bourgeois and everything that came with it, including art work, porcelain, churches, attitudes, values, etc. Does that make it anti-cultural in effect? I'd say yes.

Being anti-bourgeois culture is not the same as being anti culture. Just anti the worst forms of cultural expression.

So no!
-

[Robert]

How's that for Orientalist racism?

That is a misplaced remark on 2 or 3 levels. But if you enjoy pretending to be offended, well, I won't stand in your way. :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Define "culture."

[IcarusAngel]

Yes.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/destroy_old_world1.gif

Maoist propaganda poster showing a young man smashing a Buddha, ancient chinese texts, a crucifix, and American records. The cultural revolution was beating people up who didn't agree with you.

[Hiero]

Discuss. Poll to follow.

What do you mean?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Maoist propaganda poster showing a young man smashing a Buddha, ancient chinese texts, a crucifix, and American records.
But that is only one form of culture. The whole point of the cultural revolution was to destroy an old culture and replace it with a new one. You cannot call it "anti-cultural" unless you want to make a value judgment as to which culture is better. Are ancient Chinese texts somehow better or "more cultural" than the Little Red Book? How so?

Of course, the cultural revolution was a total disaster and completely failed to achieve its goals. But that's another issue.


The cultural revolution was beating people up who didn't agree with you.
Yes, that was part of it too.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is indeed racist to play on the stereotype of Asians as "inscrutable". For that reason, Robert, I am giving you an infraction. This board will not tolerate racist abuse.

[Bankotsu]

Define "culture."

See chapter 2 "Man and Culture", there is a detailed analysis of definition of culture:

The Evolution of Civilizations - An Introduction to Historical Analysis


http://www.archive.org/details/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo

[Bankotsu]

How's that for Orientalist racism?

You are from China, so do you support BRIC's efforts to destroy U.S imperialist economic, financial system?

[khad]

You are from China, so do you support BRIC's efforts to destroy U.S imperialist economic, financial system?
Goddamn you are annoying.


Yes.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/destroy_old_world1.gif

Maoist propaganda poster showing a young man smashing a Buddha, ancient chinese texts, a crucifix, and American records. The cultural revolution was beating people up who didn't agree with you.


Funny that an example of cultural production is used to prove that the GPCR was anti-cultural.

[Bankotsu]

Goddamn you are annoying.

You are afraid of being restricted by the bastard?:D

[khad]

You are afraid of being restricted by the bastard?:D
No, I just don't trust reformist Dengist or Putinite scum.

[Bankotsu]

No, I just don't trust reformist Dengist or Putinite scum.

You are prepared to let U.S imperialism run amok without confronting them?

[scarletghoul]

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

Kwisatz Haderach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=8782) is correct when he says it was about smashing parts of old culture (for example oppressive traditions like sexism and religion, and bourgeois thought etc) and creating a new culture (with proletarian thought and revolutionary art and so on).

So to answer the question, no it was not "anti-culture", it was about revolutionising culture. This revolutionisation of culture had some success, with the abolition of sexism, the destruction of religious oppression, and the establishment of revolutionary art.

Cultural Revolution is a vital part of any revolution. It's important to establish a proletarian socialist culture. After all, how can socialism survive if people still have bourgeois-capitalist thought and behaviour?

Anyone who voted 'yes' is an idiot, who presumably thinks that the only possible culture is the reactionary shit that exists, and that it's savage and uncivilised to want to replace it with something better. They also fail to understand that culture is firmly tied to class rule. Our culture is full of bourgeois ideals and enforces bourgeois rule. We gotta replace this capitalist culture with socialist culture (cultural revolution)

[danyboy27]

Anyone who voted 'yes' is an idiot, who presumably thinks that the only possible culture is the reactionary shit that exists, and that it's savage and uncivilised to want to replace it with something better. They also fail to understand that culture is firmly tied to class rule. Our culture is full of bourgeois ideals and enforces bourgeois rule. We gotta replace this capitalist culture with socialist culture (cultural revolution)

i voted yes beccause i dont see the point of destroying good in perfectly good conditions, especially craft and arts.

if you are about to reform your culture, make museums with those things, or even better recycle them, reuse them or redistribute them. destroying good in perfectly good condition is a waste of time, manpower and ressources.

you cant just destroy your past, put your finger in your ear and shout:LALALALALALA in the hope that you will forget your past.

sometimes its good to know where you came from in order to not repeat the old mistake like, for exemple coming back to capitalism...hoo nevermind

[Hiero]

Yes.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/destroy_old_world1.gif

Maoist propaganda poster showing a young man smashing a Buddha, ancient chinese texts, a crucifix, and American records. The cultural revolution was beating people up who didn't agree with you.

Isn't the poster culture?

[scarletghoul]

i voted yes beccause i dont see the point of destroying good in perfectly good conditions, especially craft and arts.

if you are about to reform your culture, make museums with those things, or even better recycle them, reuse them or redistribute them. destroying good in perfectly good condition is a waste of time, manpower and ressources.

you cant just destroy your past, put your finger in your ear and shout:LALALALALALA in the hope that you will forget your past.

sometimes its good to know where you came from in order to not repeat the old mistake like, for exemple coming back to capitalism...hoo nevermind
The people aren't gonna sit back, stroke their beards, sip their tea and consider "hmm, this reactionary bullshit could be seen as a precious artifact by some in the future; perhaps I should recycle it." or whatever you think they should have done. A revolution is not a motherfuckin dinner party.

[danyboy27]

The people aren't gonna sit back, stroke their beards, sip their tea and consider "hmm, this reactionary bullshit could be seen as a precious artifact by some in the future; perhaps I should recycle it." or whatever you think they should have done. A revolution is not a motherfuckin dinner party.


i dont even see the point of wasting time to judge wich item is more worthy than another, i think destroying stuff beccause they belong to a certain social class is completly stupid.


an object is an object, there are not dangerous or held any mistical power.

a crafted tea pot for instance is nothing but a damn piece of ceramic, and a violin is nothing but an instrument, and a baseball card is a piece of cardboard with stats of a baseball player on it.

the only valid reason i see for destroying an item is if its treaten the physical health of others, IE:microwave that kill people who use it or a child toy made of lead.

[Pogue]

The ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

Kwisatz Haderach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=8782) is correct when he says it was about smashing parts of old culture (for example oppressive traditions like sexism and religion, and bourgeois thought etc) and creating a new culture (with proletarian thought and revolutionary art and so on).

So to answer the question, no it was not "anti-culture", it was about revolutionising culture. This revolutionisation of culture had some success, with the abolition of sexism, the destruction of religious oppression, and the establishment of revolutionary art.

Cultural Revolution is a vital part of any revolution. It's important to establish a proletarian socialist culture. After all, how can socialism survive if people still have bourgeois-capitalist thought and behaviour?

Anyone who voted 'yes' is an idiot, who presumably thinks that the only possible culture is the reactionary shit that exists, and that it's savage and uncivilised to want to replace it with something better. They also fail to understand that culture is firmly tied to class rule. Our culture is full of bourgeois ideals and enforces bourgeois rule. We gotta replace this capitalist culture with socialist culture (cultural revolution)

Wait, what? So we need to go around smashing things up so people lose 'bourgeois capitalist thought'? Jesus christ some of you people are so ridiculous...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what's gonna go, and why? Because it seems to me that when you get down to brass tacks, a "cultural revolution" simply means trashing stuff that doesn't meet the approval of the Enlightened Proletarian Vanguard Party.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Basically it was pro-Mao and anti-everything else. Of course if they're going to knock everything else down then they should've knocked Mao and the whole Party down too.

[PRC-UTE]

So what's gonna go, and why? Because it seems to me that when you get down to brass tacks, a "cultural revolution" simply means trashing stuff that doesn't meet the approval of the Enlightened Proletarian Vanguard Party.

I certainly didn't expect you to make such a comment, your politics being so focused with militant atheism and technocracy.

Certainly what's gonna go is a question for the revolutionary class at the time of a cultural revolution. I wouldn't try to predict what cultural forces would be poles of attraction for reactionary forces at that time. Maybe it will be a certain sport, like fox hunting, or a certain books. Whatever they are, I support getting rid of them.

Do you view culture as something neutral, or something that carries reactionary baggage and class politics?

[danyboy27]

I certainly didn't expect you to make such a comment, your politics being so focused with militant atheism and technocracy.

Certainly what's gonna go is a question for the revolutionary class at the time of a cultural revolution. I wouldn't try to predict what cultural forces would be poles of attraction for reactionary forces at that time. Maybe it will be a certain sport, like fox hunting, or a certain books. Whatever they are, I support getting rid of them.

Do you view culture as something neutral, or something that carries reactionary baggage and class politics?

you dont think its more up to the owner of the goods to decide what they want to keep or throw away rather than a bunch of elite?

[PRC-UTE]

you dont think its more up to the owner of the goods to decide what they want to keep or throw away rather than a bunch of elite?

Who is the elite in your hypothetical scenario?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I certainly didn't expect you to make such a comment, your politics being so focused with militant atheism and technocracy.

Surprising as it may seem, outside of obviously religion-inspired and perpetuated garbage such as the idea that humans are inherently fucked beyond saving (derived from the Christian doctrine of Original Sin), militant atheism has little bearing on people's cultural choices. Why the fuck should it matter, from an atheist or anti-theist perspective, why people like action movies?

Technocracy, by itself, has nothing to say on the subject of culture, due to being a theory on how to manage technology and resources, not people.


Certainly what's gonna go is a question for the revolutionary class at the time of a cultural revolution. I wouldn't try to predict what cultural forces would be poles of attraction for reactionary forces at that time. Maybe it will be a certain sport, like fox hunting, or a certain books. Whatever they are, I support getting rid of them.

The working class knows what's best for itself, but that is not the same thing as saying the working class is infallible. The working class as a group will make mistakes, and it is the task of those that know better to ensure that such mistakes are either avoided in the first place or rectified afterwards as soon as possible.


Do you view culture as something neutral, or something that carries reactionary baggage and class politics?

Neither. Culture is too wide-ranging and complicated to fit into a single box. Certain elements of contemporary culture do indeed carry reactionary and classist aspects, but the correct response is to criticise and reject such elements as a class, rather than to impose cultural strictures from on high. Thus debate and education should be the rule rather than the imposition of the whims of a self-declared leadership.

[danyboy27]

Who is the elite in your hypothetical scenario?

the revolutionary class you where talking about earlier.

IF there is a revolution one day the last thing i want is to have some so called revolutionaries telling me what to do and what to throw away.

if some dudes remove the current elites in place i dont want them to replace the old elite.

isnt communism supposed to remove the current power structure instead of replacing it?

beccause to me, when someone say:
hoo well the revolutionary class will decide!

it sound like: hoo well lets the politician decide! they know how to handle this problem!

[Richard Nixon]

Saying that "This isn't revolutionary/pro working class! Let's destroy it!" isn't pro-cultural and it doesn't increase revolutionary culture's value, only makes it the only culture around. We capitalists in the USA haven't destroyed the Communist Manifesto or communist literature or art or etc. so why should leftists destory capitalist literature or art?

[PRC-UTE]

so why should leftists destory capitalist literature or art?

So we can make new literature and new art.

I don't imagine that all culture from the past will be gone, yet neither do I foresee veneration of all the same cultural baggage that made sense in class society continuing under socialism. Much of the "culture" in modern society is pure posturing, anyway.


the revolutionary class you where talking about earlier.

IF there is a revolution one day the last thing i want is to have some so called revolutionaries telling me what to do and what to throw away.

if some dudes remove the current elites in place i dont want them to replace the old elite.

isnt communism supposed to remove the current power structure instead of replacing it?

beccause to me, when someone say:
hoo well the revolutionary class will decide!

it sound like: hoo well lets the politician decide! they know how to handle this problem!

I asked which elite, because really our goal is to put the working class into power. Yes, eventually the aim is to have a more or less stateless society where there is no ruling elite. Before that of course, there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and this will remake society in its own image, just as the capitalists have done by sweeping away much of the culture of the society that preceded their rule. How else are revolutions made?

I'm not really pushing for a scenario exactly like the one in China's cultural revolution. For one thing, I just don't know enough about it. But I do think some movement to create a new culture will arise, as it did in the Soviet Union as well. That will involve repressing many aspects of the old culture, and I think that process is inevitable.

[danyboy27]

So we can make new literature and new art.

I don't imagine that all culture from the past will be gone, yet neither do I foresee veneration of all the same cultural baggage that made sense in class society continuing under socialism. Much of the "culture" in modern society is pure posturing, anyway.


i fail to see the need of destroying culture to make another one, if you dont have anymore elite to promote it or enforce it, it will either go away and some elements might stay, i dont really see the need to destroy a culture by force.
the last time i read that argument it was on stormfront about the jews and the need to destroy their degenerate culture to make room for the aryan culture.



I asked which elite, because really our goal is to put the working class into power. Yes, eventually the aim is to have a more or less stateless society where there is no ruling elite. Before that of course, there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and this will remake society in its own image, just as the capitalists have done by sweeping away much of the culture of the society that preceded their rule. How else are revolutions made?
I.
well i dont know how revolution are made but if its mean giving state power to a group of so called professional revolutionaries then i prefers to stay with the shit system i have right now.



I'm not really pushing for a scenario exactly like the one in China's cultural revolution. For one thing, I just don't know enough about it. But I do think some movement to create a new culture will arise, as it did in the Soviet Union as well. That will involve repressing many aspects of the old culture, and I think that process is inevitable.
new culture movement dosnt mean the end of another one! million of migrant actually live in canada and their culture enriched ours, asian, indian african and arabs, all those group of people benefit to our society.

[Richard Nixon]

So we can make new literature and new art.

I don't imagine that all culture from the past will be gone, yet neither do I foresee veneration of all the same cultural baggage that made sense in class society continuing under socialism. Much of the "culture" in modern society is pure posturing, anyway.





Why not preserve past literature and art because if the new literature and art is vastly superior you can preserve the past ones to show the latter's inferiority and thus how bad the capitalist system and culture was.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Saying that "This isn't revolutionary/pro working class! Let's destroy it!" isn't pro-cultural and it doesn't increase revolutionary culture's value, only makes it the only culture around. We capitalists in the USA haven't destroyed the Communist Manifesto or communist literature or art or etc. so why should leftists destory capitalist literature or art?
In Eastern Europe, capitalist governments after 1990 have actually made a lot of effort to destroy communist culture and art - and in fact not only communist culture and art, but anything that celebrates or promotes the notion of working class rebellion. For example, in my city, there was a large statue commemorating a peasant uprising which had nothing to do with communism. They took it down.

[danyboy27]

In Eastern Europe, capitalist governments after 1990 have actually made a lot of effort to destroy communist culture and art - and in fact not only communist culture and art, but anything that celebrates or promotes the notion of working class rebellion. For example, in my city, there was a large statue commemorating a peasant uprising which had nothing to do with communism. They took it down.

hey i am against suppressing culture no matter wich side does it, and i am pretty sure Nixon agree with me on this, right Nixon?

[Hiero]

an object is an object, there are not dangerous or held any mistical power.

a crafted tea pot for instance is nothing but a damn piece of ceramic, and a violin is nothing but an instrument, and a baseball card is a piece of cardboard with stats of a baseball player on it.

But these items do go on to shape people's lifes as they interact around them. Commodities for instance appear to hold mystical powers, their ability to be of value on the market etc. Then there are items in the home which we centre out activity around, such as the stove, tv, computer, the kettle.

For a cross cultural look, like at Evans-Pritchards work on the Azande, and how oracle's shape people's lifes.

No one every just thinks of an object just as an object, except where an object comes into ones cosmology as a foreign object, even then it can be treated more then just a pyschical object as dirt ie " get that filthy bong off the table".


Anyway, you guys have no idea about the cultural revolution. You are making it sound like the parts of the GPCR which destroyed these "sacred" objects was a decision of Mao or the pro GPCR clique. Infact Mao and other GPCR had to stop students and rebels from attacking and physical destroying artifacts and buildings. In Mobo Gao (2008) mentions that in Tibet they PLA had to stop Tibetans from destroying the monastries.

There was no central leadership during the GPCR. The pyhsical destruction of these items came from mass action, not directions from higher authorities. Then I think it can be viewed as cleansing act, people's revenge on past attrocities from the reactionary classes, like the bourgeoisie and fuedal lord (which was heavly tied into the religious authority).

[danyboy27]

But these items do go on to shape people's lifes as they interact around them. Commodities for instance appear to hold mystical powers, their ability to be of value on the market etc. Then there are items in the home which we centre out activity around, such as the stove, tv, computer, the kettle.

For a cross cultural look, like at Evans-Pritchards work on the Azande, and how oracle's shape people's lifes.

No one every just thinks of an object just as an object, except where an object comes into ones cosmology as a foreign object, even then it can be treated more then just a pyschical object as dirt ie " get that filthy bong off the table".


Anyway, you guys have no idea about the cultural revolution. You are making it sound like the parts of the GPCR which destroyed these "sacred" objects was a decision of Mao or the pro GPCR clique. Infact Mao and other GPCR had to stop students and rebels from attacking and physical destroying artifacts and buildings. In Mobo Gao (2008) mentions that in Tibet they PLA had to stop Tibetans from destroying the monastries.

There was no central leadership during the GPCR. The pyhsical destruction of these items came from mass action, not directions from higher authorities. Then I think it can be viewed as cleansing act, people's revenge on past attrocities from the reactionary classes, like the bourgeoisie and fuedal lord (which was heavly tied into the religious authority).
its so strange that people took all this time and all these ressources to destroy things rather than struggling to feed their families during these times. do you have any valid proofs about for exemple, the red guard, and their role in the whole process?
its not freewill when you have a bunch of goon running around looking for bourgeois.

[Hiero]

its so strange that people took all this time and all these ressources to destroy things rather than struggling to feed their families during these times.

That was a continuing process. By the end of Mao's leadership the country could feed itself. So we can assume that the process continued through the cultural revolution.


do you have any valid proofs about for exemple, the red guard, and their role in the whole process?

Valid proofs about what exactly?

Gao actually distinguishes a difference between Red Gaurds and Rebels (2008, p.132). The former were member loyal to party bureaucrats, the later were loyal to Mao.

That is also a thing you have to take note of, the multi political positions that were involved in the cutlural revolution. It was just not case of one group verses another. There would have been millions of people who would not have had a huge change of life because of the cultural or a change for the people. There is a book on amazon about the memoirs of a different women who were sent to the rural area to work as barefoot doctors. This was generally a positive experince for them, as they interacted with the villages in setting up medical centres and educating people.


its not freewill when you have a bunch of goon running around looking for bourgeois.

Where does freewill come into the debate. Is it no freewill to choose not to participate or not, to rebel or gaurd?

I don't think you have though much about the topic.

[danyboy27]

i have to admit i dobnt know much about the cultural revolution.

but it dosnt change the fact that destroying stuff in perfectly good condition dosnt make sense at all.

[Jazzratt]

Part of the aims of the cultural revolution were to destroy the old culture and introduce a new one. It could be described as anti-cultural in the same way that demolishing a building in order to build another one is ant-building. Whether their methods were correct and, indeed, whether their aims were at all realistic are another question. I'm inclined to agree with Dimentio that the cultural revolution was a political ploy by Mao to consolidate his power.

[Richard Nixon]

hey i am against suppressing culture no matter wich side does it, and i am pretty sure Nixon agree with me on this, right Nixon?

Yes exactly. I wouldn't have minded too much if some statues of Mr. Lenin or the working class hadn't been torn down.

[Hiero]

I'm inclined to agree with Dimentio that the cultural revolution was a political ploy by Mao to consolidate his power.

And that is completly ridiculous.

If it is true that is what Mao wanted, to use the Rebels or Red Guards to consolidate his power, it does not neccassarily mean that the Cultural Revolution was a political ploy for Mao to consolidate his power.

As I have constantly said on this site, the cultural revolution can not be summed up under one cause or one reason. It is on par with orientalism to believe that the social movement was under the thumb of Mao. This idea of the stupid masses being swayed by this or that oriental despot.

The equivalent would be to say the Russian revolution occured so Lenin could come leader of the USSR, or World War 2 was a ploy for Churchills popularity.

It is interesting the other side of the cult of personality, today the cult of personality about Mao is re-created by his oponnents, no longer his supporters.

[red cat]

The new democratic revolution in China was carried out by the united front of the proletariat, peasantry, national and petit-bourgeoisie. Though the socialist revolution was declared to be complete by the 1950's, due to the reason above, bourgeois participation in the CPC was quite high.

Also, the CPC had observed the counter-revolution in the USSR. It was seen that before taking over the state-machinery, the bourgeoisie first re-emerges in the cultural front, then in the political front. Thus, as an extension of Lenin's mass-line, and a step forward to communism, the masses were now required to continue class-struggle both outside and INSIDE the communist party.

So, the GPCR was not only about "culture"; it was class-struggle in such a society, where the bourgeoisie was trying to infiltrate and take over the state machinery through the communist party, and the proletariat was trying to expose and eliminate them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Beijing failed last week in legal and diplomatic efforts to block the sale of the artefacts, which were part of an auction of the vast art collection assembled by the late fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent. The bronze busts were originally among 12 animal heads that decorated a fountain at the Imperial summer palace in Beijing. The Chinese government insists that they were stolen by French and British troops when the palace was burned during the second Opium War, in 1860.

Mr Cai told a press conference in Beijing yesterday that he made the final €15.7m bids for each of the animal heads as part of a plan to sabotage the auction, devised by an association devoted to the recovery of looted Chinese art.

The refusal of a French court, and then the French government, to block the sale has provoked a further downward spiral in the already troubled relationship between Paris and Beijing.

Mr Cai's announcement is also a severe embarrassment for the auction house, Christie's, which had gone to extreme lengths to verify the credentials, and purchasing power, of those authorised to bid in the so-called "sale of the century".

Mr Cai, one of the authorised telephone bidders, is an art collector and expert on ancient Chinese art. He is the owner of Xinheart, an auction company in Xiamen, in southern China. He is also an adviser to the Lost Cultural Relics Recovery Program, a non-governmental body which attempts to repatriate important works of Chinese art.


So did the Europeans steal Chinese heritage, or save it? :confused:

More than likely, both.

I have deep respect for Chinese people who secretly hoarded their ancient heirlooms and pieces of reactionary garbage, much like the Afghans who risked their lives to save items depicting a contemporary Alexander conquering Bactria, or Iraqis who saved Nebudchadnezzars treasures. Once those pieces are gone, they are gone forever.

No piece of "progressive" propoganda or another of the millions of paintings of Stalin or Mao can come anywhere close to filling the void left when thousands of years of art and history are rashly destroyed.

How sad is it that China, by far the oldest culture in the history of mankind, must go abroad and set up groups such as the "Lost Relics Recovery Program" in order to find it's heritage?

(I know the bronze figures were made by Jesuit priests or whatever. That's irrelevant.)