Communist sculptures

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You live in a post-Soviet country, which had some sculptures depicting working-men and working-women built immediately after Soviet occupation after WWII. There is a widespread anti-russian sentiment in the country and sort of building on it, sort of independently of it, conservatives want the sculptures removed due its association with the Soviet occupation, lack of independence, Soviet dictatorship etc. A rather simple narrative that is pretty convincing when there is a widespread nationalist sentiment in the country already.

The fight over sculptures would obviously be purely ideological and in the absence of a workers' movement, which could create its own independent and progressive narratives for the removal of sculptures, the conservatives would get a victory politically if they succeed in their quest.

It seems to me that under such circumstances, a communist should stand against the removal of the sculptures, elaborating a different narrative about their existence - how it's not about occupation, but about the universality and celebration of working-people etc.

The question I want to bring forth is: what would you do under the circumstances and how would you elaborate your position?

[Rafiq]

An unconditional defense of all sculptures, even of Stalin - assuming responsibility for our history and our legacy, no matter how muddied with corruption. Many will say: "But the connotations of the statue have changed!", prattling of national sensitivities. The point is that such connotations only reign in the absence of a Communist language which would designate such statues on other terms. The real connotations of their removal is the consolidation of our legacy, our history on national lines. One might add that: "Their mere existence affirmatively already consolidates it!" - indeed, but with such affirmation looms the restless ghosts of the past, passively waiting to find redemption.

This, however assumes we have the choice. We do not, and our movement has yet to come.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I don't think the part of whether one should or shouldn't defend the statues is very problematic. The part that seems problematic, however, is the sort of language one can use to defend them. Of course, if one was to use the exact same rhetoric that you yourself used in your post, one would be assumed to be a lunatic and would only play in the hands of the enemy, in the absence of the communist movement, that is.

However, we do have a choice in a sense that we can affirmatively defend their existence without using rhetoric, which could only work with a working-class movement already in place. Many lefties are doing precisely this, but there is no unified narrative in their defence (in case you are wondering this is a real case). So to clarify the problem: what sort of narrative/language/rhetoric a communist could use to defend the statues in the absence of the movement? What one can claim the statues designate right now, within the liberal/conservative ideological universe?

[Rafiq]

Absolutely nothing. One must strive to be a lunatic, for self disorder in a doomed order, as an insistence for the conditional possibility of a new order.

The movement derives from present conditions of struggle, but the actualization of the struggle comes from the supersession, not adherence to our ideological language. The point is that his supersession is approximated towards it, not within it. But truly, confined to ruling ideological language one can say nothing. How could we? Why should the ruling class keep a vestige of a failed attempt to destroy it? If it is on their terms, what's the point anyway?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

That's ridiculous as it is self-defeating. Communist movement won't be willed into existence by using communist rhetoric and this "insistence for conditional possibility of a new order" is fine as an abstraction, but it's self-defeating.

What I mean to say is this: One doesn't need communist rhetoric to defend the working class interests from an onslaught of neoliberalism, say, from market liberalisation. Under such circumstances one could talk about classes, antagonism, capitalism etc. but not (necessarily or strictly) because "as an insistence for conditional possibility of a new order", but because that rhetoric springs naturally from a situation. If it didn't, if such rhetoric was self-defeating and played into the hands of the enemy, it would ridiculous to use it and we ought to find something different to use as a narrative.

However, one could use communist rhetoric, talking about how the sculptures represent the universality of working-class, how it celebrates the common man or whatever. That rhetoric is vaguely communist, but it makes sense in the context, while talking about necessity to defend the communist heritage etc. doesn't make sense as it would be self-defeating.

So it's not strictly on their terms. I am asking more about how the communist rhetoric could be used to appeal to a rather conservative mass of workers or intelligentsia. For instance, "Peace, land and bread" was a perfect slogan, resonating among the masses of people without cliches about communism and other such things. I am looking for something similar, but not for a slogan, but a narrative.

Is any of this clear or am I being too vague?

[Rafiq]

You miss the point: Defending such sculptures from a " working class standpoint" using practical language is impossible as their importance could only ever be designated through Communist language. It's not a practical demand, so it cannot employ practical language in its defense. In few, or no former Communist states at all does there exist synchronicity between petty worker consciousness and old Communist nostalgia. The trade unions aren't a continuation of this legacy.

That doesn't mean struggle is impossible without Communist language, but that as far as this specific struggle for our aesthetic and symbolic legacy goes, it is.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Ah, so the problem might lie in that we view differently what these sculptures represent at this specific instance. For you it's aesthetic and symbolic legacy, while for me it's merely an abstract tool in an ideological fight against the more conservative elements of the society.

Then, it follows, that in your case you can't have the language to defend them, while I am talking about something entirely differently. I am not talking about communist legacy, but an ideological battlefield where the working-class or rather intelligentsia can only be on defence.

[Rafiq]

Then, it follows, that in your case you can't have the language to defend them, while I am talking about something entirely differently. I am not talking about communist legacy, but an ideological battlefield where the working-class or rather intelligentsia can only be on defence.

Without a Communist language, the statue can only have one meaning: which is its articulation solely on national lines, or at the very best on the conditions of ruling liberal ideology. The only thing which I could possibly even think of, which exists in Germany today, is their retention as a "reminder" of the dangers of totalitarianism. Again, the working class as it presently exists in such countries has no affinity with them spontaneously.

I suppose it depends on the statues, as far as their removal go: If they are WWII memorials, then certainly such practical language could be deployed. Otherwise, what even is there to say? It is part of the aesthetic national history of the country?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

They aren't WWII memorials, they are Soviet Russia-imposed celebration of working-people, they are merely depicting workers, soldiers, students and something else. Some pseudo-leftish intellectuals are defending the statues precisely on the grounds of them having some artistic/aesthetic value. But the point is that these sort of arguments only go so far with the workers, it doesn't create a narrative, it works only in the circles of intelligentsia and politicians themselves.

There are some (absolutely marginal and insignificant) pseudo-anarchist defence that states that these statues are a celebration of workers, that it's different in that they don't depict leaders or special figures, but in a certain sense represents the power of the workers, so that they, as a social category, can be elevated to the level of statues and stand side by side with the great men of history etc. These arguments, while don't immediately resonate with the working-people, can still be employed as a narrative, I believe, although, I am not sure of its efficiency.

But ultimately, the way I see it, that in the absence of any communist movement and in the absence of communist language and even in the absence of a short-term prospect of such movement or language (as far as this country goes anyway), the point is to defend the statues at whatever cost necessary, because their removal would be an ideological victory for the conservative elements of society with all the consequences that come from it. And I mean defence even if it takes to employ a language from liberal ideological universe.

I know that it's shitty politics to oppose whatever pro-capitalist forces are doing as we become, in a sense, dependent on them ideologically, but in the absence of any positive affirmation of communist politics, I don't see any other prospects.

[Rudolf]

I'm of two minds on this tbh. On the one hand i dont really take the notion of fighting a a potential ideological victory of conservative elements that seriously as there's more concrete struggles to devote effort towards. I can understand it more in the presence of a communist movement within that geographic area as it could be a nice boon in the sense that the movement can do it just to disrupt dominant ideologies and their reproduction but in the absence of a communist movement i think the imperative for our efforts has to be helping to build it through concrete struggles that help to improve living standards etc. Again though, i do think ideological warfare must form a necessary part of the class war. Im not sure where to stand but i'm open to persuasion

[John Nada]

The question I have is, what's going to replace the statues? Some dead noblemen, Jesus, a parking lot, an ad for McDonald's? Or maybe just a blank space? All would be a ironic joke, describing the modern era.

The thing is, someone sculpted/cast the statues. There were models the artist based it on. The brass and concrete were made by someone. Someone mined the material, processed the ore, moved it from one place to another. Then someone laid the foundation, and put the statue at it's place. This was all done by and for workers, even if it was some Soviet idea.

I think it's tragic like many acts of iconoclasm. Like when the Spanish conquistadors destroyed Mesoamerican idols and literature, leveling Tenochtitlan(possibly the largest city in the world at the time) to the ground. To solidify the power of the church and empire, a lot of knowledge was lost for good.

What would I say to a fellow worker about the destruction of art, that had the misfortune of not being made for capitalism? It's unfortunate that the picture of someone's grandparent, a common person, or of a revolutionary like Marx and Lenin, who inspired people throughout the world, is being replaced by a count or duke who held their ancestors in serfdom. I'd say it's wrong, and opposes it, like burning books. If there's nothing that can be done, or they don't give a fuck, make a joke about how one boss just replaced another.

Trying to go back to the past is reactionary, those old governments shouldn't be recreated(nor could it), but the art of the people from that era can stay. If they destroy socialists' statue, let it be replaced by something worthwhile.