Cultural Revolution (not China's)

[ComradeGrant]

Does anyone here advocate some sort of cultural revolution?

[X5N]

I'm not sure that the social changes I idealize could be accomplished in some gradual, non-revolutionary way. But the problem I have with the idea of cultural revolution is that the only way I can think of it succeeding is through authoritarian means. At least, succeeding in the things I want it to succeed in. And even then, I don't think there's any way for it to be fully successful.

[Zealot]

Yes, I do.

[citizen of industry]

Hell no. It's impossible to "build socialism" in one country, especially if it is economic shambles. No amount of propaganda and attempts to make a "new socialist man/woman" are going to change that. A global revolution that abolishes the capitalist mode of production and puts control of production in the hands of the workers will by and large eliminate things like greed, selfishness, abuse and addiction, not to mention improve education, free time, medical care, etc. and create a better communal conscience without the need for an authoritarian dictatorship to censor cinema and books and try to manipulate people's psychology. It's an economic question. People don't want the state entering their bedrooms and living rooms trying to improve their "culture."

[Zostrianos]

If it's anything like what happened in China, with museums looted and destroyed, book burnings, and wanton destruction of historical relics and art (not to mention mass violence and murder of innocent people), never.

However, if such a revolution targeted solely things like advertising, big companies and other such capitalist relics, I wouldn't oppose it.

[The Douche]

Political/economic revolution is impossible until there is a fundamental change in our culture, and the current dominant (i.e. bourgeois) culture is destroyed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Cultural revolutions" (ie things like Nazi book burnings or China's cultural revolution) which try to stamp out "decadent" or "retrograde" areas of culture are always succeptable to rather extreme excesses, for example classical music being some kind of decadent bourgeois relic that we need to eliminate, or forbidding people from reading classic/ancient literature because, however seemingly innocous it may be, to the paranoia-plagued mind of the censors it's subversive.

Even events generally viewed positively by much of the left, for example Spain's post-coup revolution in some areas of the country and the minor "cultural revolution" there with the burning of money and attacks on priests/churches, had some negative things associated with them, some things that probably shouldn't have happened, looking back on it. Although of course the benefit of hindsight allows for clarity that wouldn't have been available to the people who took part in those and other events.

The thing about China's cultural revolution is that, while Maoists try and portray it as some game-changing event in the communist timeline, with Mao "cleaning house" with the bureaucracy, pretty much every source I've read that doesn't come directly from a Maoist (or sympathizing) perspective portrays the Chinese cultural revolution as a giant shitshow. With the possible exception of Hardt & Negri.

[Sixiang]

Yes, I do.


If it's anything like what happened in China, with museums looted and destroyed, book burnings, and wanton destruction of historical relics and art (not to mention mass violence and murder of innocent people), never.

However, if such a revolution targeted solely things like advertising, big companies and other such capitalist relics, I wouldn't oppose it.
The Chinese cultural revolution was aimed at bourgeois and feudal "relics." If anything like that ever happened, it was because local red guards and the local revolutionary people wanted to be done with these buildings and religious items that symbolized centuries of oppression, exploitation, and ignorance. The CCP officially did not support destruction of historical relics and some great archaeological finds were done and preserved during that time period.


"Cultural revolutions" (ie things like Nazi book burnings or China's cultural revolution) which try to stamp out "decadent" or "retrograde" areas of culture are always succeptable to rather extreme excesses, for example classical music being some kind of decadent bourgeois relic that we need to eliminate, or forbidding people from reading classic/ancient literature because, however seemingly innocous it may be, to the paranoia-plagued mind of the censors it's subversive.

Even events generally viewed positively by much of the left, for example Spain's post-coup revolution in some areas of the country and the minor "cultural revolution" there with the burning of money and attacks on priests/churches, had some negative things associated with them, some things that probably shouldn't have happened, looking back on it. Although of course the benefit of hindsight allows for clarity that wouldn't have been available to the people who took part in those and other events.

The thing about China's cultural revolution is that, while Maoists try and portray it as some game-changing event in the communist timeline, with Mao "cleaning house" with the bureaucracy, pretty much every source I've read that doesn't come directly from a Maoist (or sympathizing) perspective portrays the Chinese cultural revolution as a giant shitshow. With the possible exception of Hardt & Negri.
Gee I wonder why people who aren't Maoists or Maoist sympathizers would want to portray Maoism or the Cultural Revolution negatively.

[Seth]

Gee I wonder why people who aren't Maoists or Maoist sympathizers would want to portray Maoism or the Cultural Revolution negatively.

So it's black and white, the world is composed of Maoists and rabid anti-Maoists out to discredit China?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gee I wonder why people who aren't Maoists or Maoist sympathizers would want to portray Maoism or the Cultural Revolution negatively.

Even the academics who usually fawn over certain aspects of, say, the USSR usually portray the Cultural Revolution as pretty much a mess, which it was. The only exception I remember reading was "The Promise of the Coming Dark Age" by LS Stavrianos, in which he talks at length approvingly of the "new Maoist man", and compares them favorably to Jesuits and the Amish. :rolleyes:

[workersadvocate]

Yes, I strongly encourage an independent internationalist working class cultural revolution before, during and after proletarian revolutionary seizure of power.
Why? Because of the continuation of age-old prejudice, remaining oppressive traditions, and inequal social stratifications. And because the working class must emancipate itself from these conditions, fully united with the struggles of the more specially oppressed working people against the old order and its remaining stratifying oppressive influence in the pre-abundance stage.

[citizen of industry]

Yes, I strongly encourage an independent internationalist working class cultural revolution before, during and after proletarian revolutionary seizure of power.
Why? Because of the continuation of age-old prejudice, remaining oppressive traditions, and inequal social stratifications. And because the working class must emancipate itself from these conditions, fully united with the struggles of the more specially oppressed working people against the old order and its remaining stratifying oppressive influence in the pre-abundance stage.

So we need a "cultural revolution" to teach the masses the correct way to think, because they are like sheep? If they are able to pull off a revolution, I think it clearly demonstrates sufficient class-consciousness. And what about "pre-abundance"? Most of the world does not consist of illiterate peasantry. If anything humanity is overabundant to the point we are damaging the ability to sustain life on our planet in the near futu,re.

Edit: How do you plan on controlling access to information anyway? Censoring the net, film and music like in China? I doubt that's going to work out too well. And who determines what is allowable and what isn't?

[Welshy]

So we need a "cultural revolution" to teach the masses the correct way to think, because they are like sheep? If they are able to pull off a revolution, I think it clearly demonstrates sufficient class-consciousness. And what about "pre-abundance"? Most of the world does not consist of illiterate peasantry. If anything humanity is overabundant to the point we are damaging the ability to sustain life on our planet in the near futu,re.

I think you have misinterpreted what workersadvocate is saying because of kneejerk reaction to the term cultural revolution. What I think he is getting at (and Workersadvocate correct me if I'm wrong) is that because of how engrained capitalist ideology and things like consumer cultural and religious fundamentalism are in places like the US there will have a constant struggle to get rid of these things. This doesn't mean treating people sheep and what not.



Edit: How do you plan on controlling access to information anyway? Censoring the net, film and music like in China? I doubt that's going to work out too well. And who determines what is allowable and what isn't?

Ok, seriously where do you get this from what workersadvocate said? This strawman just got really sad.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What I think he is getting at (and Workersadvocate correct me if I'm wrong) is that because of how engrained capitalist ideology and things like consumer cultural and religious fundamentalism are in places like the US there will have a constant struggle to get rid of these things.

FYI, consumer culture isn't necessarily bad. Fetishes for consumption, on the other hand, are bad. One forgotten aspect of "consumerism" is activism for consumer protection. As the more religious might say, "hate the sin" but "love the sinner."

[Ostrinski]

Well, considering culture is a reflection of material conditons, I'd say it changes on its own, in interdependence with all other phenomena. But then again, we haven't defined culture yet.

[workersadvocate]

So we need a "cultural revolution" to teach the masses the correct way to think, because they are like sheep? If they are able to pull off a revolution, I think it clearly demonstrates sufficient class-consciousness. And what about "pre-abundance"? Most of the world does not consist of illiterate peasantry. If anything humanity is overabundant to the point we are damaging the ability to sustain life on our planet in the near futu,re.

Edit: How do you plan on controlling access to information anyway? Censoring the net, film and music like in China? I doubt that's going to work out too well. And who determines what is allowable and what isn't?

No, what I meant is that the worse off and more specially oppressed working people and the most politically advanced workers will feel the need to initiate and continue to struggle on all fronts toward communism, and to prevent and resist bureaucratization/stratification, opposing the return of oppressive laws and traditional social stigma, and countering enemy pressure to take the road of capitalist restoration. Consider the struggles that will necessarily continue to abolish inequal and oppressive relations and prejudices against women, gays and lesbians, and other historically oppressed peoples.

This struggle can't be dictated from above by some new ruling minority caste of bureaucrats...because we working people can't allow such dispossession of the working class masses to occur ever again. That's a big reason why it is crucial that a revolutionary communist movement is forged with an overwhelming working class and at least proportionally diverse composition from the beginning, and every measure possible is done to actually cultivate a culture of liberation within our class, and to train and prepare our fellow working people to genuinely RULE as an international class-for-itself striving to abolish all exploitation and oppression and pursue the development of worldwide communism.

It will take continous struggle worldwide to finally fully bury "the kingdom of necessity" and reach the "kingdom of freedom" (aka communist society).

[citizen of industry]

I think you have misinterpreted what workersadvocate is saying because of kneejerk reaction to the term cultural revolution. What I think he is getting at (and Workersadvocate correct me if I'm wrong) is that because of how engrained capitalist ideology and things like consumer cultural and religious fundamentalism are in places like the US there will have a constant struggle to get rid of these things. This doesn't mean treating people sheep and what not.



Ok, seriously where do you get this from what workersadvocate said? This strawman just got really sad.

I probably did misinterpret to some extent, as usually happens over the internet where sarcasm, etc. are difficult to read.

I'm interpreting the term "cultural revolution" to mean what is was under the USSR and China. I don't think we should be abstracting from that or coming up with other definitions, because that's what the thread is about and that's what defines the term. A conscious effort to change the psychology of the population through propaganda and censorship, in order to create a "new/better Soviet/Chinese/etc. Man/Woman."

I consider this type of effort to be not only a failure, but something that can only be carried out by an authoritarian power with complete control of media and print, which doesn't fit my perception of a democratic society where workers control the means of production. Aside from that I feel the idea of "cultural revolution" as something that can be foisted on people by plan, to be an un-Marxist analysis of things. As Brospierre points out:


Well, considering culture is a reflection of material conditons, I'd say it changes on its own, in interdependence with all other phenomena.

Furthermore I'd say in Chinese or Russian conditions in the past century the majority of the populations were peasant and illiterate, which may have justified to some extent educating people and teaching them to read and write with Communist newspapers, literature and films, etc., organized by an authority able to carry this out in an organized and scheduled fashion, but that in the 21st century, the conditions are much different. 80% of the globe is literate. I can access any kind of science, history, culture and whatnot I wish at the touch of the button in dozens of different languages at any place and time. So any attempt by an authority to control information is not only stupid but in fact impossible, and unneccesary considering the high-level of class consciousness it would require to expropriate the capitalists in the first place.

I took workersadvocates statement about a "pre-abundance" stage to be a parroting of Leninist thought circa 1920 when they were living in economic squalor, not a reflection of our society today, particulary in the developed countries most revlefters are operating in. But I might be wrong here.

[Welshy]

Well, considering culture is a reflection of material conditons, I'd say it changes on its own, in interdependence with all other phenomena. But then again, we haven't defined culture yet.

That is true but bourgeois elements in society won't disappear entirely, especially if capitalism hasn't be overthrown global (or at least in its strongholds), so these remnants will still have to be fought though not in the way the CPC tried with their cultural revolution.


I'm interpreting the term "cultural revolution" to mean what is was under the USSR and China. I don't think we should be abstracting from that or coming up with other definitions, because that's what the thread is about and that's what defines the term. A conscious effort to change the psychology of the population through propaganda and censorship, in order to create a "new/better Soviet/Chinese/etc. Man/Woman."

I agree with you on this, though in the title the OP specified that we weren't talking about China's cultural revolution. Personally I don't see a cultural revolution as being separate from a social revolution as establishing a culture of solidarity and breaking away from the remnants of bourgeois society is natural part building a communist society.


Furthermore I'd say in Chinese or Russian conditions in the past century the majority of the populations were peasant and illiterate, which may have justified to some extent educating people and teaching them to read and write with Communist newspapers, literature and films, etc., organized by an authority able to carry this out in an organized and scheduled fashion, but that in the 21st century, the conditions are much different. 80% of the globe is literate. I can access any kind of science, history, culture and whatnot I wish at the touch of the button in dozens of different languages at any place and time. So any attempt by an authority to control information is not only stupid but in fact impossible, and unneccesary considering the high-level of class consciousness it would require to expropriate the capitalists in the first place.

Ok, I still don't understand where you are pulling this from. Has either of us (me and workersadvocate) said anything that makes this even relevant?

[workersadvocate]

Cultural revolution initiated by worker-communist together with the worse-off and historically specially oppressed segments of the international proletariat....so very different from China's GPCR!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's one aspect where a debate could occur with respect to more "authoritative" cultural revolutions: scrapping the economic family.

Ending the "economic family": domestic production, roommates, and communal living (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ending-economic-family-t162355/index.html)

Material incentives could be provided from the outset in favour of urban communal living, and perhaps even penalties could be levied such as the notorious "marriage penalty tax" in the US. Just make sure that the new living methods don't ignore personal hygiene (like too few bathrooms).

[Ostrinski]

That is true but bourgeois elements in society won't disappear entirely, especially if capitalism hasn't be overthrown global (or at least in its strongholds), so these remnants will still have to be fought though not in the way the CPC tried with their cultural revolution.But what necessitates a cultural revolution if there is class consciousness? Cultural revolution connotates the imposition of social realities upon a larger constituent, which would require class distinctions. If there is class consciousness then there is nothing to be initiated in the first place, as it will happen on its own with the transition of class power and the development of the material conditions that precede and succeed it. Cultural norms will be relative to the evolution of these conditions.

[citizen of industry]

Here's one aspect where a debate could occur with respect to more "authoritative" cultural revolutions: scrapping the economic family.

Ending the "economic family": domestic production, roommates, and communal living (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ending-economic-family-t162355/index.html)

Material incentives could be provided from the outset in favour of urban communal living, and perhaps even penalties could be levied such as the notorious "marriage penalty tax" in the US. Just make sure that the new living methods don't ignore personal hygiene (like too few bathrooms).

In the USSR they made a retreat back into the "sacred family" because of economic conditions. They intended to provide 24-hour childcare, communal catering, they legalized abortion, in an attempt to create equality for women and put an end to the economic family and the domestic labor of women. But they didn't have the resources to get it off the ground and then Stalin said to hell with it, a woman's place is at home and in the kitchen.

So again, no need for "authoritative" cultural revolutions. It's an economic question. People don't need to be coerced or forced into doing things like this. If we have the resources (which we do, we have an overabundance of material resources and wealth), we can just create a favorable environment and it the change will occur naturally. Here, there are huge waiting lists for public daycare, so private daycare makes big bucks profiting from working families like mine. Put an end to capitalist expoitation and we open the doors to a whole new world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But what necessitates a cultural revolution if there is class consciousness? Cultural revolution connotates the imposition of social realities upon a larger constituent, which would require class distinctions. If there is class consciousness then there is nothing to be initiated in the first place, as it will happen on its own with the transition of class power and the development of the material conditions that precede and succeed it. Cultural norms will be relative to the evolution of these conditions.

There may be real class consciousness (in the sense of being derived from basic political consciousness and from neither basic economic consciousness nor even "socialist" consciousness), and there may be real alternative culture in the pre-war SPD model, but do really think that cultural independence and cultural radicalism are the same as cultural revolution?

My example above on the economic family is one example whereby alternative culture in the pre-war SPD model might not address, because the cultural prerequisites for the DOTP aren't the same as for the communist mode of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the USSR they made a retreat back into the "sacred family" because of economic conditions. They intended to provide 24-hour childcare, communal catering, they legalized abortion, in an attempt to create equality for women and put an end to the economic family and the domestic labor of women. But they didn't have the resources to get it off the ground and then Stalin said to hell with it, a woman's place is at home and in the kitchen.

So again, no need for "authoritative" cultural revolutions. It's an economic question. People don't need to be coerced or forced into doing things like this. If we have the resources (which we do, we have an overabundance of material resources and wealth), we can just create a favorable environment and it the change will occur naturally. Here, there are huge waiting lists for public daycare, so private daycare makes big bucks profiting from working families like mine. Put an end to capitalist expoitation and we open the doors to a whole new world.

So what do you think of the issues I raised above re. "creating a favourable environment"? Material incentives and tax-based "family penalties" count, don't they? [That's before going into what I said re. the "roommate revolution" today.]

They're not as radical as Maoist stuff, but a basic sense of "authoritativeness" that inspired Mao's cultural thinking is still needed for the same reason I stated in my response just above (cultural prerequisites for the DOTP vs. for the communist mode of production).

[citizen of industry]

I don't think you need the penalties. The material incentives speak for themselves. That's one of the ABC's of socialism, is it not? But I certainly don't think we need an authoritarian government forcing people into dormatories against their will. But this is off topic, no? Most parties allow in their programs 24-hour daycare, free public education, the right to abortion, public catering, etc.

[Welshy]

But what necessitates a cultural revolution if there is class consciousness?
That is why I said that I don't see a cultural revolution as being independent from the larger revolution.

However there are negative parts of society that wouldn't necessarily be gotten rid of with class consciousness. One example I can think of off the top of my head is homophobia, which is evident from the fact that a lot communists in the past were very homophobic.



Cultural revolution connotates the imposition of social realities upon a larger constituent, which would require class distinctions. If there is class consciousness then there is nothing to be initiated in the first place, as it will happen on its own with the transition of class power and the development of the material conditions that precede and succeed it. Cultural norms will be relative to the evolution of these conditions.

If you would have read the rest of my post you would have noticed that I sad this cultural revolution would be a natural part of the larger revolution. I guess maybe using the term "cultural revolution", which it seems like "socialism/communism" has in US become associated with some excessively authoritarian, wasn't the best. Maybe "cultural change" is a better way of expressing this phenomenon that takes place with in a social revolution.

I would like to say this. I do think that in some areas with in the US religious conservatism will be a big obstacle to overcome.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think you need the penalties. The material incentives speak for themselves. That's one of the ABC's of socialism, is it not? But I certainly don't think we need an authoritarian government forcing people into dormatories against their will. But this is off topic, no? Most parties allow in their programs 24-hour daycare, free public education, the right to abortion, public catering, etc.

If by "forcing people into dormatories against their will" you're referring to more forceful measures than tax-based carrots and sticks, then I agree.

[Ostrinski]

There may be real class consciousness (in the sense of being derived from basic political consciousness and from neither basic economic consciousness nor even "socialist" consciousness), and there may be real alternative culture in the pre-war SPD model, but do really think that cultural independence and cultural radicalism are the same as cultural revolution?If the proletariat is class conscious, then why would it be derived from anything other than socialist consciousness? If the proletariat is class conscious, then that means they are aware of their interests, ergo have a socialist consciousness. I don't know much about 1800's Denmark, so I'm not sure where I referenced cultural radicalism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.


My example above on the economic family is one example whereby alternative culture in the pre-war SPD model might not address, because the cultural prerequisites for the DOTP aren't the same as for the communist mode of production.K I'm gonna be flat out honest and say that I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. What cultural prerequisites are there for the DOTP?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the proletariat is class conscious, then why would it be derived from anything other than socialist consciousness? If the proletariat is class conscious, then that means they are aware of their interests, ergo have a socialist consciousness. I don't know much about 1800's Denmark, so I'm not sure where I referenced cultural radicalism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

As Harnecker argued in her book Rebuilding the Left, class consciousness /= socialist consciousness. I only argued further by saying that political consciousness /= socialist consciousness.



My example above on the economic family is one example whereby alternative culture in the pre-war SPD model might not address, because the cultural prerequisites for the DOTP aren't the same as for the communist mode of production.K I'm gonna be flat out honest and say that I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. What cultural prerequisites are there for the DOTP?

To its enormous credit, the pre-war SPD had cultural societies, recreational clubs, funeral homes, etc. That's quite different from organizing urban communal living.

[Ostrinski]

That is why I said that I don't see a cultural revolution as being independent from the larger revolution.

However there are negative parts of society that wouldn't necessarily be gotten rid of with class consciousness. One example I can think of off the top of my head is homophobia, which is evident from the fact that a lot communists in the past were very homophobic.I see what you're saying. I don't understand being a bigot if you are class conscious. I was never a bigot, but I didn't necessarily become militantly against any form of bigotry until I was class conscious. I think most leftists will agree that a rejection and repulsion of these bigotries develops organically with becoming class conscious, but you are right. It would be harder to combat in areas where homophobia (and any other bigotry) is not only a cultural norm, but a state enforced one.




If you would have read the rest of my post you would have noticed that I sad this cultural revolution would be a natural part of the larger revolution. I guess maybe using the term "cultural revolution", which it seems like "socialism/communism" has in US become associated with some excessively authoritarian, wasn't the best. Maybe "cultural change" is a better way of expressing this phenomenon that takes place with in a social revolution.

I would like to say this. I do think that in some areas with in the US religious conservatism will be a big obstacle to overcome.I still think they will disappear organically for the most part, but obviously just as the entirety of the proletariat will not become class conscious, the entirety of the proletariat will not shed their bigotries. But I think that the fact that there won't be any analogue for things like this will in its own right negate any reason anyone would have for holding them.

[bcbm]

Political/economic revolution is impossible until there is a fundamental change in our culture, and the current dominant (i.e. bourgeois) culture is destroyed.

you've got it backwards i think

[Ostrinski]

you've got it backwards i thinkI agree. How do we shed bourgeois traditionalism if the bourgeoisie still hold class power?

[Red Noob]

Does anyone here advocate some sort of cultural revolution?

It wouldn't hurt.

[Sixiang]

So it's black and white, the world is composed of Maoists and rabid anti-Maoists out to discredit China?
Not exactly what I meant.


Even the academics who usually fawn over certain aspects of, say, the USSR usually portray the Cultural Revolution as pretty much a mess, which it was. The only exception I remember reading was "The Promise of the Coming Dark Age" by LS Stavrianos, in which he talks at length approvingly of the "new Maoist man", and compares them favorably to Jesuits and the Amish. :rolleyes:
How about checking out the works of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, Jurgen Domes, William Hinton, Joshua Horn, K.S. Karol, Maria Antonietta Macciocchi, Maurice Meisner, Edgar Snow, or Anna Louis Strong, just to name a few of the people who wrote positively of revolutionary PRC.

[Azraella]

In a way. One of the things that I think we need to talk about in a serious way is organizational cultures. Especially in the context of power distance proposed by Hofstede. In our capitalist and statist culture and society we as a society have an expectation that there is going to be a huge power difference between some people. We also have to consider how patriarchy intersects with this. Our society values competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions and these are stereotypical "male" values. I'm also concerned about the uncertainty avoidance that is prevalent in our culture. As a culture we have people unwilling to take serious risks. which is problematic for any revolutionary leftist. Once we had a communist society however, I suspect that in time uncertainty avoidance will rise back up as material conditions would make risk unneeded. That said, we need to shift to a task culture rather than a person culture and recognize that collectivism and individualism can co-exist. Also, I think we need to change proletarian attitudes towards creating change to be aggressive rather than passive.

[crust_cheese]

I would say that if anything, the proletariat itself must realize what true culture is and what isn't. There is little use in taking that task away from it. It is, in my opinion, an important step towards and a sign of mental maturity.