The fate of "culture" under communism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Usually I'm not a big fan of hypothetical "but what's gonna happen to [insert here] under communism?", but I've been thinking over this subject a bit recently, and wanted to hear some opinions.

Let's say that the whole world becomes communist. What's going to happen to "culture"? A lot of culture is heavily interlinked with the concept of nationality, which obviously many communists aren't fans of. I've heard several individuals say before that they want to see the destruction of all cultures, and to have them be replaced with one singular "proletarian culture". But one global culture sounds somewhat like a dystopian blandscape to me.

Anyway, the floor is yours.

[Amphictyonis]

Usually I'm not a big fan of hypothetical "but what's gonna happen to [insert here] under communism?", but I've been thinking over this subject a bit recently, and wanted to hear some opinions.

Let's say that the whole world becomes communist. What's going to happen to "culture"? A lot of culture is heavily interlinked with the concept of nationality, which obviously many communists aren't fans of. I've heard several individuals say before that they want to see the destruction of all cultures, and to have them be replaced with one singular "proletarian culture". But one global culture sounds somewhat like a dystopian blandscape to me.

Anyway, the floor is yours.

I would think it would be a sort of mixture of various types of communism. A global federation of continents with varying cultures hopefully cooperating and trading in lieu of competing and being subversive. . Capitalism is creating a sort of McWorld culture as can be seen in Asia and other regions with the youth emulating western culture. This is largely due to media, Hollywood and advertisements. Religion has a big deal to do with it as well. I can't really speculate what would happen but I'm sure conflict would still exist between various cultures. I don't think communism is the cure for humankind's silliness when it comes to aligning with various groups for identity purposes. It won't be some utopia but a step up in human development. Hopefully. I'd like to see workers unite in lieu of getting behind this personality or that- following a minority leadership into war and confrontation with others they don't agree with. Hopefully with communism will come the end of political ideology but would that be a good thing? Perhaps communism isnt the last stage in human development? Who knows, not me.

[Savage]

The nationalist culture that you speak of isn't something that us leftists will shed a tear over the death of, but if you think that nationalism is the heart of all culture then you are wrong. Art plays an essential role culture, and in communist society everyone will be welcomed to creativity and expression.

[Tablo]

Nationalist culture was born only in the past few hundred years with the rise of the nation-state. Nationalism will die along with some reactionary elements in culture(gender roles), but culture itself will still be remain alive.

[Amphictyonis]

Nationalist culture was born only in the past few hundred years with the rise of the nation-state. Nationalism will die along with some reactionary elements in culture(gender roles), but culture itself will still be remain alive.

Rome , Egypt, Achaemenid Empire, Greece etc.

[Tablo]

Rome , Egypt, Achaemenid Empire, Greece etc.
And yet none of them were nations so they lacked nationalism and a national identity. Their was a great variance in cultures across these civilizations. Culture was actually a lot more localized back then too.

[FreeFocus]

Culture arises organically when you have a group of humans. It's just part of social interaction. The manipulation of culture for the benefit of the bourgeoisie will obviously end, but I don't really like hearing leftists talk about "abolishing culture." People need to be careful with their language, as there's a difference between culture as a concept and the manipulation of it that we see by the ruling class. Moreover, even cultures today aren't just bourgeois culture. There's a complex interplay between images, words, and concepts used by the ruling class, and how their meaning is interpreted, changed, and accepted or denied by everyday people.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nationalist culture was born only in the past few hundred years with the rise of the nation-state.

I don't think that's true. Cultures were certainly defined largely by the nations (i.e. groups of people with a shared identity) well before nation-states began appearing.

[Amphictyonis]

And yet none of them were nations so they lacked nationalism and a national identity. Their was a great variance in cultures across these civilizations. Culture was actually a lot more localized back then too.

I'd argue rome was a nation with its own culture as were the others I mentioned. I don't want to argue about it though :) If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

[Tablo]

I don't think that's true. Cultures were certainly defined largely by the nations (i.e. groups of people with a shared identity) well before nation-states began appearing.
They weren't defined that significantly prior to the nation-state due to the lack of communication. I don't think nation would be the best term to identify groups of people. I don't even think the term nation had any real relation to how we use it until around the time of Louis XIV. Then again I could be wrong on all this. This is my thoughts based on a couple years of college history classes, not any cultural study classes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Culture arises organically when you have a group of humans. It's just part of social interaction. The manipulation of culture for the benefit of the bourgeoisie will obviously end, but I don't really like hearing leftists talk about "abolishing culture."

It was actually one of the threads about Colombus/native americans that made me think about this, IIRC. It might have been the big which doctor debacle.

Where I come from, the indigenous culture is dying. A lot of it has been consumed with alcohol and drug abuse, and it's pretty sad. Some people are trying to save/maintain some of it, though, and I've heard various opinions from leftists in regards to whether that's a worthwhile project or not.

[Tablo]

I'd argue rome was a nation with its own culture as were the others I mentioned. I don't want to argue about it though :) If I'm wrong I'm wrong.
Rome was a city-state, but I may be wrong about some of this too. Not trying to argue or anything. :lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

EVERYONE PUNX EVERYWHERE.

No, seriously though, any authentic communism will make room for a flourishing of various expressions of community. Culture is that which is ultimately common - communism should be its multiplication infinitely.

[Tablo]

EVERYONE PUNX EVERYWHERE.

No, seriously though, any authentic communism will make room for a flourishing of various expressions of community. Culture is that which is ultimately common - communism should be its multiplication infinitely.
I was all excited for a moment. :(

[9]

imo, this is interesting: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/cult-o23.shtml

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I still think it's interesting.

[FreeFocus]

It was actually one of the threads about Colombus/native americans that made me think about this, IIRC. It might have been the big which doctor debacle.

Where I come from, the indigenous culture is dying. A lot of it has been consumed with alcohol and drug abuse, and it's pretty sad. Some people are trying to save/maintain some of it, though, and I've heard various opinions from leftists in regards to whether that's a worthwhile project or not.

Gosh, witch doctor. Was that the thread where Agnapostate was just destroying people? :lol: I don't remember the thread but I remember witch doctor's posts pissing me off.

Yeah, that pretty much describes the situation in the US and Australia. I believe that it's definitely a worthwhile project, and as I've said in other threads, I would tolerate no efforts to "abolish my culture," because that's what American imperialism has attempted to do for centuries. Cultural preservation needs to be the task of people belonging to that culture, though. So the question for Leftists who aren't a part of these cultures is not whether the Left should "support" these efforts, but rather, will they line up behind imperialism and racism by not opposing efforts to suppress cultures? But this reeks of "identity politics," I've been told :rolleyes:

Nation-states are contrived. Is there a "national" German culture, a "national" British culture, or even a "national" Sudanese culture? Germany was unified in the late 1800s from pretty disparate groups. The British didn't exist as a "people" until after many invasions and subjugation of different groups (who still exist today, but such "nationalisms" are often racist in Britain). And in Sudan, and the rest of Africa for that matter, European colonial borders resulted in unrelated ethnic groups being arbitrarily lumped together, many of them split by borders. This is the type of nationalism that is fake, more or less, and exploited by the bourgeoisie, but even this is not purely bourgeoisie, because the working class, by adopting it, interacts with it, changes it, etc. Culture is a constant war, one of pulling and of pushing. So take American Indian cultures, for example. As only a small Native bourgeoisie/ruling class exists, a lot of the cultural manipulation has been done at the hands of White American society. Cultural appropriation sees "Native regalia" produced not in Native communities, but in China. It's a whole industry now. And in terms of appropriating certain concepts to work at the service of capitalism, the military has very successfully stolen and co-opted the concept of warrior, and many Natives are suckered into serving the interests of imperialism on this basis.

No culture is perfect, and things should be critiqued. The good should stay and the bad should be smashed. So, for example, even though a culture existed before capitalism and isn't entirely a fiction, if it has elements of patriarchy, sexism, etc (which weren't created by capitalism, by the way, but only manipulated and used in service of it), those things can't be excused and should be properly addressed.

I hope this was coherent as I kind of rushed it, but I'll clarify things better if necessary.

EDIT: Also wanted to add that in a federalized system of worldwide anarchist communities/regions, cultural exchanges will intensify and strengthen. People everywhere have some common experiences and it's always exciting to see and experience different cultures and see the similarity with your own. Naturally with increased interrelatedness/interaction there will be some merging, and an emergence of some type of "global" culture, but things specific to each community will continue to shape differences and uniqueness. That's just the nature of social interaction and the way culture develops.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

some of Paul Werner's writings, notably "Museum, Inc." (unfortunately available commmercially at a fixed price), and his sequel, The Red Museum which has just come out, and is available at a negotiated price from the author, free for inmates and others, very expensive for the rich. Also, Werner's just issued the English version of an article on the same subject that he originally wrote in French. English title: Proletarians Behaving Badly.

Gist is, watch out that there are two separate concepts which are deliberately confused within capitalism: culture and Kulcha, or, in German, Zivilisation and Kultur. Once you start to unravel the class differences you start to see what's really going on.

Werner is at werner(at)theorangepress.com

BTW - in reference to the discussion of Roman culture: Rome is a perfect, perhaps THE defining model of a Kultur invented from above, and imposed as culture. Read Cicero, who didn't believe the Romans had a culture but claimed the Roman ruling classes could appropriate Greek (i.e., Athenian elite) culture. It's a model you'll find adopted as far as Nara Japan.

[ComradeOm]

They weren't defined that significantly prior to the nation-state due to the lack of communication. I don't think nation would be the best term to identify groups of people. I don't even think the term nation had any real relation to how we use it until around the time of Louis XIV. Then again I could be wrong on all this. This is my thoughts based on a couple years of college history classes, not any cultural study classes.The nationstate is a recent development but the nation far proceeds it. The two are often used interchangeably but its necessary, in these discussions at least, to make a distinction. The obvious example is of course Germany - a recognisably distinct 'German' culture, complete with references to 'Germany', emerged many centuries before the creation of a formal German nationstate

[Tablo]

The nationstate is a recent development but the nation far proceeds it. The two are often used interchangeably but its necessary, in these discussions at least, to make a distinction. The obvious example is of course Germany - a recognisably distinct 'German' culture, complete with references to 'Germany', emerged many centuries before the creation of a formal German nationstate
So when you are saying Germany you are referring to the Germanic peoples? What we see as Germany today was made up of many different culturally distinct peoples.

I think I know what you are talking about, but I'm not really sure because the people in the geographic region of Germany didn't really hold a national identity until more recent history that coincides with the rise of the nation-state. I think the example you are using does probably hold more true for other modern nations though. So I'm not disagreeing with the point you were trying to make.

[¿Que?]

Culture is part of the superstructure which is determined by the economic base of society. Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet. As such, culture will exist, but it will be different than what it is now, as it will not be the result of reified structures of economies, but people putting into action their ideas and aspirations as human beings within a collective of some sort. I think this is what is meant by the one "proletarian culture."

It will probably vary across regions, but with the rise of communication technologies, as well as the demise of the nation(state), cultures will not necessarily be localized. Truth is, we can't say for sure what form culture will take in communism, but we can say it will exist in some way.

[ComradeOm]

So when you are saying Germany you are referring to the Germanic peoples? What we see as Germany today was made up of many different culturally distinct peoplesObviously the 'German nation' didn't correspond exactly to today's borders (thank you ethnic cleansing and mass deportations) but you can trace a common German identity back to around the start of the previous millennium. Also obviously, this did include plenty of regional identities, but then its a false dichotomy to insist that these cannot coexist with a wider national culture. Some peoples in what is today's Germany were destroyed or assimilated (spare a tear for the Wends) and others maintained an ambivalent relationship (the Czechs spring to mind) but from medieval times there always existed a distinct 'German-speaking world'

Within this milieu you get the evolution of a distinctly German language, literature, music, philosophy, etc, etc. What you didn't really see until the 19th, and particularly in reaction to the assertive development of French nationalism, was the emergence of a political identity to match this cultural one. When Mozart considered himself to be a German, it did not imply a political allegiance

I wouldn't use the term 'Germanic' because its far too vague and would encompass a much larger chunk of modern Europe