A major essay by August Thalheimer returning to Mehring’s wellspring of Marxist arts criticism in light of the Soviet experience and rise of European fascism for the I.C.O.’s mid-30s theoretical journal.

‘The Application of Dialectical Materialism to Art and Literature’ by August Thalheimer from Road to Communism (I.C.O.). Vol. 2 No. 2. Spring, 1935.

Marx and Engels only occasionally applied dialectical materialism to the history of art and literature. The outline of the economic substructure and the political and social superstructure absorbed their chief interest, for theoretical as well as for practical reasons. Mehring, while exploring the new field of literary history by means of this method, developed new phases of this splendid instrument of research. As with Marx and Engels, so with Mehring, the most instructive information is not found primarily in the more or less short and occasional remarks directly bearing on the method, to which they adhere in their works, but rather in these works themselves. Withal, it was understood by Mehring, as well as by Marx and Engels, that the historico-materialist method presupposes a complete mastery of the actual historical material and full acquaintance with the results of bourgeois science in its critical revolutionizing of the bourgeois ideological interpretation of history.

In the field of literary history Mehring mastered all the tools of the bourgeois critique of literature. The brilliant, translucent, and seemingly playful presentation which distinguishes his works in this field and makes of them historical works of art, from which all the mould of the workshop has been removed, must not hide from us the fact that they were all preceded by the most thorough, the most conscientious and the most painstaking research. The beauty of their form is intimately connected with the pithiness of their content. Only the two combined give permanence to the results of his research. Hence it follows that Marxist research, which does not consider the ideological superstructure as being isolated, but deduces it from the economic substructure, must extend and broaden its field of investigation and master greater amounts of material. This may explain, incidentally, why Mehring never wrote a history of German literature using the historico-materialist method as a basis, although no one possessed the knowledge necessary for this work to such an extent as he did. Moreover, this is probably the reason why such a history will not be written by some other author in the near future.

Marx characterized the root of the matter—with which the method is concerned—in his famous sketch of an introduction to the Critique of Political Economy in the following:

“It is well known that certain periods of highest development of art stand in no direct connection with the general development of society, nor with the material and the skeleton structure of its organization. Witness the example of the Greeks as compared with the modern nations or even Shakespeare. As regards certain forms of art, as e.g. the epos, it is admitted that they can never be produced in the world-epoch making form as soon as art as such comes into existence; in other words, that in the domain of art, certain important forms of it are possible only at a low stage of its development. If that be true of the mutual relations of different forms of art within the domain of art itself, it is far less surprising that the same is true of the relation of art as a whole to the general development of society. The difficulty lies only in the general formulation of these contradictions. No sooner are they specified than they are explained.”

That is to say, it is not a question of abstract speculation, or of empty generalizations, but rather of a concrete, historical examination of relations. Thus, also, Mehring worked in the field of the history of literature and art through “specification”; only in this manner can fruitful and permanent results be achieved.

In order to obtain a true picture of Mehring’s application of dialectical materialism to the history of literature, it will be best to select a few characteristic cases.

Biography of Schiller

Let us take his biography of Schiller. In this essay Mehring brilliantly shows how historical materialism, contrary to current assertions, first makes possible that “those human beings most clearly impressed by the life and action of a historical period are revived with all their human qualities.” Artistic talent is not the object of historical research; but a “gift of nature: only upon being molded by historical conditions does it become an object of historical research.” The raw material of nature, transformed by “historical conditions” alone, gives a full, vivid picture of the historic personality and its historical effect. Mehring characterizes the personal traits of Schiller, the nature and strength of his natural talent and relates them to the peculiarities of the Swabian race. He notes the influence of the provincial surroundings of his, childhood, the influence of Catholicism, the stimulus of the Italian opera in Ludwigsburg and the inhibiting influence of the Karlsschool. He probes into the literary sources of Schiller, such as the influence of the Storm and Stress period.

He characterizes the peculiarity of Schiller’s lyrical talents, his philosophical tendencies, the influence of Kant’s philosophy, of antiquity, of history, of Goethe, etc. on Schiller, and associates these facts with the changing class relations in Germany at that time, with the concrete form of the state, with the stage of development of bourgeois class-consciousness, and with the stage of economic development. The general formula of historical materialism is thus transformed into a picture just as clear as it is rich. The economic “skeleton” is covered with muscles, nerves, and skin. A manifold series of intermediate stages establish the connections between the economic substructure and the ideological superstructure, the development of the poet, the preparation of his various works, their material content and form. By means of this method, he easily explains a phenomenon like Heinrich von Kleist, who had until then been an insoluble riddle to bourgeois critics of literary history. The latter’s natural talents; a somewhat pathological predisposition, an originally artistic and specifically dramatic talent; social conditions: belonging to the Prussian Junkerdom, whose mental horizon he was not able to break through—those are the chief elements which explain the work and the fate of the poet in its essential features.

Finally his analysis of so peculiar a phenomenon as Lenau. The mixture of nationalities in him, the fact that he never completely assimilated German intellectual life, (his complete failure to understand Hegel’s philosophy), his association with the “Swabian school”—the reflection of the reactionary, philistine wing of the petty bourgeoisie–the feudal-Magyar origin of Lenau’s consciousness of unity; these are the essential ingredients which molded and explain the poet.

Recognizing Limitations

Mehring was clearly conscious of the defects which, however, were not personal defects, still adhering to his application of dialectical materialism to the history of literature and art, and he expressed this frankly. It is all the more necessary to emphasize this, since most important indications for future Marxist research are found here. We have in mind Mehring’s dispute with Paul Ernst concerning the Lessinglegende. (Neue Zeit, XII). The objections of Paul Ernst, who played only a temporary role in the German labor movement, are today no longer worthy of detailed consideration. They move on the usual, flat level, namely, that other than material reasons are not considered by Mehring; charging him with the underestimation of the psychological factor, of literary vogues, and other such commonplaces. Paul Ernst tried specifically to overthrow the fundamental thesis of Mehring’s Lessinglegende by means of a few arbitrarily selected quotations from authors of the 18th century; Mehring’s thesis being that Lessing had been the most progressive representative of bourgeois class-consciousness of Germany at that time. According to Paul Ernst, there was no bourgeois class worthy of any consideration in the Germany of Lessing’s time, whose ideological champion he could have been. The following statements taken from the answer of Mehring to this criticism easily dispose of the superficialities of Paul Ernst by means of a simple production of concrete, historical facts, and are at the same time important to us.

“If Paul Ernst wishes to make a just reproach, it would have to be the opposite to the one he made. I paid not too much, but too little attention to the economic structure of society out of which our classical literature grew. My book undoubtedly has this fault, and in order not to deceive the reader, I emphasized this in the introduction. I said, there, that I merely wanted to dissolve critically the bourgeois caricature of Lessing and that I intended to show the general characteristics of the true Lessing in this criticism, that a scientific history of our classical literature will only be possible when the 18th century will be freed from its ideological chaos of tales and bables, when it will be viewed from its economic basis. That, however, is a problem which cannot be solved by a single person, nor can it be accomplished in a day. If Paul Ernst believes that he can solve it by means of a handful of quotations, then he has not even the faintest notion of its difficulty and its vast extent…But Paul Ernst wants to throw away the good with the evil, and, even if I admit that the bourgeoisie in 18th Century Germany has remained far behind the corresponding development in England and France, I still maintain that, compared with the situation in the 17th century, it had made more or less factual progress, progress which permitted the bourgeoisie to remain on the same mental heights with the western civilized nations, despite its economic and political backwardness. Concerning this, also, a long series not so much of contemporary opinions as of economic facts could be cited; although a thorough drawing-up of all details is for the time being impossible and, moreover, will remain impossible as long as the archives are open only to prejudiced scribblers of history.” Neue Zeit XLL 2, pp. 174-5).

Here indeed lies the decisive point for the future development of the application of dialectical materialism to the history of literature and art, as well as to the history of ideology in general. It is, of course, merely an expedient that conclusions drawn a posteriori concerning the economic structure and development have to be deduced from political and ideological phenomena. The investigation of classical German literature and philosophy requires for its more complete understanding a much more detailed presentation of economic history of the 18th and 19th centuries than was at the disposal of Mehring and than which he himself could have given. Bourgeois scientists have not yet given it, and, moreover, will not be able to give it in the future. The Marxist development of these bases cannot be the work of a single person.

Collective work is needed. By means of such a broadened and more detailed economic-historical basis alone can we succeed in carrying further the work performed by Mehring, can we further clarify and more distinctly comprehend the individual relations between literary, artistic, and ideological development and its economic basis than is possible on the basis of a history of economics which merely considers the crudest features. It is now a question of investigating the inner structure of economic conditions, economic development, and of class relationships.

Two facts are involved here. First, the more precise characterization and classification of the economic stages of development, deducing therefrom the precise stages of growth of the bourgeois class-consciousness, Secondly, it is a question of classifying the strata within the bourgeoisie and the other classes, which pass through each individual period and form the basis for the explanation of the various ideological currents existing in juxtaposition (for ex. Schopenhauer side by side with Hegel, etc.)

It will then be shown that the method of historical materialism will serve to lift unsuspected treasures in the direction indicated by Mehring himself. It will also serve us to help us comprehend much more distinctly and in a more detailed fashion the economic conditioning of literary and artistic development.

In Historico-Materialist Esthetics

All contemplation and criticism of art, including the historico-materialist, requires esthetic theory as a guide. While Mehring did not create an esthetic theory on the historico-materialist basis, he contributed important elements for its construction. In doing so, he made his criticism of the esthetic theory of German classical literature, and philosophy, especially of Schiller and Kant, his starting point—just as Marx naturally started by criticising classical English economy, namely Adam Smith and Ricardo.

Mehring justly considers Kant as the “founder of scientific esthetics”. Kant’s merit as a pathblazer consisted in proving the “first requisite of scientific esthetics, i.e., that art is the inherent and native property of humanity.” Kant is the first to separate sharply and neatly the esthetic from the logical and moral fields. He explained the beautiful as “that which devoid of interest necessarily delights by means of its pure form alone,” as a feeling of delight, which arises from “the purposeless harmony of the imagination and understanding, from the free play of both these forces.” He separates natural beauty, calling it “free beauty” from artistic beauty, which he designates as “bestowed beauty.” Kant conceives of artistic beauty as the perfection of form, as an agreement in which the particular itself is in accordance with the universal conception. The ideal of art is the Idea in the form of an individual object as contained within the universal conception. The highest ideal of art is man. Art should be law observant without law, teleological without a purpose.

Kant did not create his system of esthetics out of the depth of his soul. His system was the first theoretical blow to classical art and literature. As such, it was a pioneer deed. The overthrow and further development of German classical esthetics through critical weapons must result from the same general viewpoint as the destruction of classical economy through the Marxian critique. Adam Smith and Ricardo regarded the economic laws of capitalism as eternal laws of nature. Marx changed them into historical laws which, having arisen out of their antagonisms, develop their contradictions at a certain stage by virtue of the objective dialectics and suddenly change from their position of levers for the development of social productive forces into impediments which must be done away with through a socialist revolution and be replaced by a new system. In the same manner Kant (and with him Schiller) regarded the esthetic laws as abstracted, as apart from the art of the rising, revolutionary bourgeoisie as eternal, absolute natural laws of art.

The overthrow and further development of esthetic theory by means of historical materialism must begin at this point. “Kant”, Mehring observes, “became the founder of scientific aesthetics, though he failed to recognize the historical conditioning of his esthetic laws, though he regarded as absolute that which should only be taken for relative.” A second fundamental defect of Kantian esthetics consists in its subjective idealistic character, which is in turn very closely connected with the general character of his philosophy. Kant only considers subjective ‘motives of taste’ to be of any value, i.e. those which are founded in the constitution of the human mind. Here a “Copernician revolution” has and had to be made, a turn from idealism to materialism, from the subjective to the objective. This holds true, not only for Kant, but for all esthetic theories, which seek the “motives of taste” exclusively in subjective factors; i.e., in permanent natural attributes of the human soul; i.e. it holds true just as well for every psychological theory of esthetics which in the final analysis is nothing but the shallow dissolution of subjective-idealistic metaphysical esthetics. “Objective motives of taste,” however, “can only exist on historical ground.”

The problem of scientific esthetics can be thus posed: Can a scientific history of esthetic feelings, as they have developed and progressed in human society, be written? Do objective motives of such feelings prevail in the immense and endless confusion of subjective tastes? Whoever stands on the ground of historical materialism will give an affirmative answer, and regard the historico-materialist method as the only key to the solution of the problem. The basis of such a solution, however, lies in the realization that the mode of production of the material life also conditions and determines the “artistic life-process”. All esthetics have only conditioned value; they are subject to historical change.

Here, however, one must guard against a serious error. The laws of esthetics are historical, relative, limited, and conditioned in time and space, i.e. variable laws of esthetics. It merely demands that, at times, they be transformed and revolutionized, corresponding to the historical changes of art. Moreover, it is understood by the dialectic materialist that esthetics, in its relation to true art, constitutes the secondary and not the primary factor, as Mehring constantly pointed out. “Every creative work of art creates its own esthetics.” Art is the relatively original factor; esthetics the derived factor, Esthetics must always conform to art and not vice versa. The reaction of the secondary factor naturally also sets in here. Insofar as esthetics works out the laws of art of a definite epoch, and develops them in a general systematic manner, it reacts on the creation of art itself. That is not all. The laws of capitalistic economy, specific and historical though they may be, contain at the same time, once stripped of their specific quality, a definite body of economic laws of a general nature, which will be of value in a socialist economy.

Thus Marx explains the laws of capitalist accumulation as a specific historically transitory, form of certain general laws which must be kept with each expansion of production in whatever form it may take place, if a continually self-expanding supply of society with material goods is to be assured. In the same manner do the laws of classical esthetics contain a definite body of esthetic laws, which extend beyond a single epoch of art Some of these will be pointed out in the following statements taken from Mehring.

Art and Nature

The relation of art to nature. Mehring always vigorously opposed the esthetic theory of naturalism, according to which art would have to confine itself to the simple initiation of nature. The watchword “imitation of nature” may mean various things, depending on the development of the class struggle. That which the present ruling class experiences constitutes nature and truth. Nature as used by Russeau symbolizes a “signal of attack in world history”, a revolt against feudal convention and decadence. This self-same watchword acquired an entirely different meaning with Gustav Freytag in the Germany of the fifties. There it signified the stock-in-trade of the firm T.O. Schroeder, i.e., the vulgar glorification of vulgar capitalist higgling. In the modern naturalism of the nineties Mehring correctly discerned the reflection which the glowing torch of the mighty labor movement cast upon art. The merit of naturalism consisted in the fact it had the courage and the love of truth to describe the transitory as is.

But that is only going halfway. The success of naturalism demands on whether it will be able to complete the second part of the way, that is, to describe that which is in the making, the struggle for emancipation of the working class. Because of its inability to do this, bourgeois naturalism failed precisely as art, being both limited and fettered by the bourgeois outlook, as art of a decadent class. Mehring explains the nature of the “art of idealization,” which forms an essential ingredient of all true art, by means of the historical dramas of Schiller. Omitting all that is accidental, arbitrary, and incidental to the historic reality, they were able to set forth the historical significance of a character such as Wallenstein far better than contemporary historians—than the historian Schiller himself. This “idealization” considered as a general method of art can be separated from the specific esthetic or philosophical idealism, on which Schiller, Kant, and Hegel based it. The art of a rising revolutionary class in particular can not do without it; a dull copy of reality can never be its esthetic standard. From the point of view of the needs and capabilities of bourgeois art in its present stage it is easy to understand that the “new objectivity” treats “Reportage” as true art or as a special new form of art. The esthetic theory of a certain period of postwar art, however, can be no more of a criterion to the working class than could the esthetic theory of naturalism in the nineties.

Art and Propaganda

Mehring always vigorously opposed the bourgeois esthetics of his time, since it permitted bourgeois propaganda to be sowed thickly in art, while it condemned socialist propaganda as “true propaganda.” Mehring was of the opinion, that, as far as esthetic judgment is concerned, the important thing to consider is whether the end in view, j. e., the propaganda, is embodied in an artistic form by means of artistic methods. Mehring believed, furthermore, that great art, which blindly ignored the important problems of its period, is not possible. The great social interest at present, however, lies in the struggle for the emancipation of the working class. Even reactionary propaganda is capable of artistic expression. For example, Heinrich von Kleists “Hermansschlacht”, which presents the war of destruction waged by barbaric tribes against a superior culture in an artistic form. Incidentally, the struggle of these barbarians viewed in its relation to world history had its progressive feature, inasmuch as it served as a means of displaying a declining culture, which had entered a blind alley, and as a means of creating the bases for a new historical rise. Mehring proves just as convincingly that propaganda “can destroy the most noble work of art—if inartistic means are employed using “Michael Kohlhaas,” a short story of the same poet, as an example.

Form and Content

Mehring’s view concerning the proper relation of form to content was easily arrived at by putting his statements regarding the lyrics of Platen and the dramas of Hauptman together. He explains the pseudo-classical form of Platen, above all of his lyrics, as a protest against romanticism, i.e., as having arisen from revolutionary and not reactionary motives. At the same time, Mehring finds fault with the poet since he could only put the new content into an old form. Heine was the first to create a new lyric form corresponding to the new content. He drew from romanticism and the German folk song that which could be drawn for his purpose.

On the other hand, Mehring made the following remark in a discussion of Gerharts Hauptman’s Florian Geyer (Neue Zeit, 1896): “The rebirth of the German drama does not lie in the revolution of the dramatic form, or rather only insofar as this revolution is a means to an end. The disregard of traditional dramatic forms means progress, provided a new dramatic content can and should be gained. But this becomes an evil when it means merely striving to exist for its own sake, when representing a realistic reproduction of accidental externals, instead of the spiritual reflection of the historical process.” Speaking of Gorki’s milieu drama he says that here indeed does the new form correspond to a new content. Furthermore, in the new form, progress has taken place similar to that in history, where the hero (in the old sense of the word) is replaced by the masses. Nevertheless, he does not fail to add by way of criticism that the drama as opposed to the epos necessarily requires action. (Hence, it follows: that: In the last analysis a new artistic content also requires a new artistic form.) New content in an old form is a defect, i.e., imperfect artistic progress. New form, lacking new content is an evil in the sense that it leads to an artistic reaction. New content embodied in an old form constitutes only half the revolution. New form with old content is just a semblance of a revolution—a true indication of decadence in the field of art. Therefore also follows a correction of the esthetic interpretation of Schiller and Kant, who only separated form and content, not taking into consideration their reciprocal relations.

The Drama

A few remarks may be added here which refer to separate forms of art. Mehring defines the drama as “the height of all hitherto existing poetry.” But the “world of poetry” extends further. In agreement with Lessing he believes that, though the dramatist is free to handle historical facts as he likes, historical characters ought to be sacred to him. Dramatic art, though working on historical material, must understand the historical process of its own particular time. The laws of an epos differ essentially from that of the drama, their mixture of effacement as, for example, in Schiller’s William Tell or in Tolstoi’s Power of Darkness constitutes an artistic weakness.

Hegel and Art

A certain defect of Mehring’s attacks in the field of esthetics lies in the fact that though he discusses Schiller and Kant—the latter the founder of scientific esthetics—he does not analyze Hegel, who completed it within the bourgeois framework. An esthetic theory based on dialectical materialism must concern itself with Hegel all the more since he, though still within the bounds of idealism, overcame a number of fundamental defects in Kantism esthetics and in a certain sense paved the way for a materialistic conception of esthetics to a greater degree than did both Kant and Schiller. Quite in keeping with his whole interpretation, Hegel introduces the objective along with the historical element into esthetics, “The Philosophy of Fine Arts.” The demiurges of this historical process, to be sure, is the “absolute idea!”

A particularly serious defect is the pervading conception that “the ideals and the formulae of art are rooted in the basic religious views of the times and the people, the universal pattern being God and his Idea.” But regardless how much the Hegelian system distorts the picture of the actual development of the arts as a whole, nevertheless, taken in detail, it affords ingenious and deep insight into the connection between social relations—in the last analysis class relations—and the mode of production and the forms and contents of art. Thus, he recognizes in Reinecke Fuchs, the medieval satirical epos, an artistic picture of “feudal world conditions,” especially in Germany. He discloses in a profound manner the relation of the classical Greek epos to the social conditions of the times, of the “epic world conditions.” His class characterizations of Cervantes, Don Quixote, of the chivalric epos, of Ariosto, of Dutch painting could easily be taken over by a history of art of esthetic base on dialectical materialism.

Concerning the interpretation of art as a mere “initiation” of nature, Hegel remarks forcefully:

“In general, we may sum it up by saying that, as a matter of imitation, art cannot maintain a rivalry with nature, and if it tries, must look like a worm trying to crawl after an elephant.” (Introduction to Hegel’s Philosophy of Fine Art, translated by Bernard Bosanquet, p- 82.)

As proof, Hegel states among other things, that:

“The common outer and inner world also no doubt present to us the essence of reality, but in the shape of a chaos of accidental matters, encumbered by the immediateness of sensuous presentation, and by arbitrary states, events, characters, etc. Art liberates the real import of appearances from the semblance and deception of this bad and fleeting world and imparts to phenomenon semblances a higher reality, born of mind.” (p. 15, ibid)

Concerning the relative historical significance of the imitation of nature, Hegel makes the just observation:

“It is in this respect chiefly that the principle of naturalism in general and of copying nature in particular has recovered its influence of modern times. Its sin is to recall an art which has grown feeble and indistinct to the vigor and crispness of nature, or again to invoke against the purely arbitrary and artificial conventionalism, as unnatural as it was inartistic, into which art had strayed, the uniform, direct and solidly coherent sequences of nature.” (p. 86-87, ibid)

Concerning the relationship of art to propaganda, Hegel makes the following pertinent remarks:

“But the purpose of instruction may be treated as purpose, to such a degree that the universal nature of the represented content is doomed to be exhibited and expounded directly and obviously as abstract proposition, prosaic reflection, or general theorem, and not merely in an indirect way in the concrete form of a work of art. By such a severance of sensuous plastic form, which is just what makes the work of art a work of art, becomes a mere otiose accessory, a husk which is expressly pronounced to be a mere semblance. But thereby the very nature of the work of art is distorted. For the work of art ought to bring content before the mind’s eye, not in its generality as such, but with this generality made absolutely individual, and sensuously particularized. If the work of art does not proceed from this principle, but sets in relief its generalized aspect with the purpose of abstract instruction, then, the imaginative and sensuous aspect is only an external and superfluous adornment, and the work of art is a thing divided against itself, in which form and content no longer appear as grown into one. In that case the sensuously individual and the spiritually general are become externa! to one another.” (pp. 97-98)

He designated the ideal of art to be:

“The reality selected out of the mass of chance particulars, in so far as the inner core in this external totality thus raised in opposition to universality is itself manifested as living individuality.” (The Philosophy of Fine Art, translated by F.P.B. Osmaston, Vol. 1, pp. 2138.)

An esthetic doctrine based on dialectical materialism cannot pass up Hegel; nor can it stop there. It becomes necessary, according to the Marxian expression, to “turn it right side up again,” and to free it, at the same time, from the narrow confines of restrictions of the system. Furthermore, such a doctrine must work on the tremendous mass of material which the study of archaeology, of prehistoric times, and above all of ethnology have contributed to the development of the plastic arts, architecture, music and poetry, in the last decade. Mehring’s assertion that art did not exist until society split into classes was regarded as an error even in his time. Today, we find great quantities of material showing the most ancient and most primitive beginnings of artistic activities in forms of society before the split into classes. Bourgeois science knew how to classify and arrange this material more or less superficially. The historico-materialist method alone can really disclose it. This material is of particular import to it, since the relations between the mode of production, the forms of society, the forms and contents of art appear more openly and more directly than in class societies and thus furnish the key to the most formative chapters of historical esthetics.

The Proletariat and Art

The revolutionary theory of the proletariat is not an end in itself. It is not a mere theoretical science, just as the science of the bourgeoisie never was. It serves the practical needs of the proletarian class struggle. The same holds true for the application of the revolutionary theory to the field of literature and art in particular. It is completely applicable to the activities of Mehring in this field.

A number of tasks had to be carried out and Mehring did carry them out in an exemplary and comprehensive manner. First of all, those elements had to be singled out from bourgeois literature and art of the past which could satisfy the artistic needs of the revolutionary working class and impregnate its class struggle. The proletarian class struggle, in its full extent, embraces all fields of social life. It cannot entirely neglect any of them without being stunted, not even the field of literature and art Although, as will as seen later, literature and art can play the role in the preparation for the proletarian revolution which they played in certain periods of the preparation for bourgeois revolutions. The proletarian revolution is in all its stages not only a thing of the mind, but also of the will and the imagination. For that reason alone, the proletarian revolution can not do without the aid of literature and art in any of its phases. But, this too, is conditioned by the objectives of the proletarian revolution which do not only include bread, but also culture, beauty, and knowledge.

In order to make bourgeois literature serve the purpose of the struggle for emancipation of the working class, it is necessary to make a sharp critical separation of those elements which further and enlighten it from those which only serve to confuse and inhibit it. A materialistic interpretation of literature and art is needed for that purpose. It is not a question of falsifying or transforming the artistic expression of the bourgeois revolution into a proletarian one, but rather of understanding its true historical character, its conditioning, and with that its limitations. This can only be achieved by the objective historico-dialectical method of Marxism. Mehring’s hitherto unexcelled examples serve as proof. He did not put the Schillers, the Goethes, the Heines into a proletarian garb which would have amounted to a falsification of their historical character. Precisely he established their true historic role in the preparation of the German bourgeois revolution he was able to transfer that which was permanent and great in their artistic performances, (the revolutionary attitude maintained during the course of their lives and contained in their philosophy) into the current of the proletarian class struggle.

The second task—closely allied to the first—consists of critically understanding and rejecting the publications of present day bourgeoisie literature and art since they can only obscure or confuse the proletarian class struggle by means of a transfer of bourgeois thought, interpretation and spirit. It is often very much more difficult to recognize and consequently to reject reactionary bourgeois thought in its artistic form—than in its prosaic form during the period of preparation for the proletarian revolution, the last but not the least task is to convey those elements of the tradition of art, of knowledge, and of the formation of literary taste, that will be needed after the victory of the working class to enable it to develop its own art.

The Historical Approach

Art and literature, however, as was said above, can not play the same role in the preparation of the proletarian revolution which it played in certain periods during preparation for the bourgeois revolution. Mehring has shown, in the clearest manner possible, how classical German literature and philosophy were conditioned by the stage of development of the German bourgeois classes, when they were as yet incapable of leading a direct political struggle. It was actually the period of their preparation for the future direct political struggle. The esthetic idealism of classical literature made a virtue out of its necessity But the positive significance of their doings was none the less clear to Schiller and Goethe, as well as to Fichte and Hegel. Schiller says in his “Letter of Esthetics”, “Let us point out the way to the good, and the peaceful rhythm of time will bring about an evolution.” Create “symbols of that which is excellent until the illusion will overcome reality and art will overcome nature, (i.e., the feudal society.”)

Though it may often seem as if Mehring ascribed the role that literature and art played in the bourgeois revolution of Germany merely to special circumstances under which the German bourgeois revolution developed, i.e. its retardation in. comparison with the bourgeois revolution in France and England, he realized, nevertheless, that this role is closely connected with the general conditions of bourgeoisie revolutions in general. Discussing the life and works of Tolstoi, Mehring remarks the following: “Literature is at its height whenever economics and politics are as yet too immature to bring about an historical revolution, though it is already being announced by a hundred tongues. These are the ‘classical expressions’ of literature.” The exact content and the exact form of the “classical period” of bourgeois writers in individual countries are not only determined by the totality of class relations in their particular country, but also by the influence of surrounding countries, i.e., by the international stage of the class struggle and its ideological reflex, namely, “world literature.”

A comparative study of the development of the most important national bourgeois literatures from this point of view would prove to be interesting and fruitful in many respects. Underneath these peculiarities, however, a general, typical course of the development of bourgeois literature can be discerned, founded on the general character of the bourgeois revolution and the role of the bourgeoisie therein. The bourgeoisie at the time of its revolutionary preparation is already the economically decisive ruling power, i.e., even before it becomes the ruling political power through the accomplishment of the revolution. Due to this, its economic role, the bourgeoisie becomes a decisive factor in cultural matters, in science, in literature, and art. The victory of bourgeois literature, art, and philosophy, therefore, precedes its political victory. This is a preliminary result determined by its economic and social role and at the same time is a preliminary condition for its political victory.

With the proletariat conditions not only differ, but are precisely the opposite. The proletariat represent that class in bourgeois society which is oppressed not only politically, but also and at the same time economically and culturally. Only its political victory will create the necessary conditions for its economic as well ag cultural rule. Consequently, literature and art in comparison with the political and economic struggle can only play a subordinate, restricted role in the entire proletarian class struggle, during the preparation for the socialist revolution.

Bourgeois Art and the Proletarian Revolution

During the preparation for the bourgeois revolution, bourgeois art partly accompanies the fighting proletariat. This lasts for a certain period even after the partial or complete victory of the bourgeoisie, only to break at a certain point. Typical examples in German literature are Heine and Herwegh and the most typical of all Freiligrath. Concerning Freiligrath, Mehring maintains that that which made him the most enthusiastic poet of the proletariat in 1848-9 and that which, on the other hand prevented him from keeping step with the socialistic agitation of the sixties in his poetry, was above all due to the fact that the struggles of the peoples in 1848-9 with their dramatic effects, their wealth of color and personalities, served to stimulate the poetic imagination, while all these phases were lacking in the socialistic agitation of the sixties and of those of later years. “Socialistic lyricism”, Mehring observes, “had its day, as long as communism symbolized prospect, hope, and longing, and thus offered free play to the poetic imagination.” However, as soon as it becomes a clear recognition of necessity, “the muse remains silent beneath the sword.” Excellent as these instances are, we believe that the reasons lie still deeper. Socialistic lyricism, i.e., the revolutionary bourgeois poetry, accompanies the proletarian class struggle along as it is related to the struggle of the bourgeoisie, as long as both overlap in their purpose and content, though antagonisms have already become apparent. The separation takes place at the point when the working class independently opposes the bourgeoisie, when the antagonisms between the two classes have become decisive and irrevocable.

Temporary contacts between bourgeois poetry and the working class again and again take place later on in the periods of transitions from one phase of bourgeois art to another during the time of its decline. They are based each time on a temporary misunderstanding by the bourgeois artists, who look upon their revolt against certain forms (worn out by time) of bourgeois art and of bourgeois life, as being essentially the same as the revolt of the proletariat which is directed against the bourgeois class and against bourgeois life in general in all its forms, be they worn-out or revived, old-fashioned or “modern.” Such was the case in the early beginnings of naturalism, when the Gerhart Hauptmann-Arno Holt and Henkells, for a time, considered themselves “socialists” or were considered by others as such.

Thus it was in the beginnings of expressionism, when the Hasenclevers, etc., wrote revolutionary hymns in the vein of Schiller. This it was at the dawn of the “new objectivity.” As a rule, these authors become aware of their error. The important point is that the working class, in its turn, should not become subject to the same illusions. As for naturalism, in the beginning of this literary movement, Mehring thought that there was a possibility that it might find its way to the working class. He characterized Hauptmann’s “Weavers” as a genuine work of art and as a “revolutionary play.” However, he very soon found that naturalism was an ungrafted growth out of bourgeois soil, which could not be transplanted in the ground of the working class. Using a fitting parallel with romanticism he said: “Romanticism, basically feudal, borrowed its weapons from the bourgeoisie in order to defend itself against it; just as the Indian had borrowed the gun from the white man. The same relation holds true for the socialistic features of bourgeois naturalism; bourgeois naturalists are just as socialistically minded as the feudal romanticists were bourgeois minded, no more and no less.” Mehring in no way wanted this objective characterization of the naturalist authors to be understood as being subjective. He stressed the following:

“It would be quite unjust to attribute their narrow-minded attitude towards the proletarian class struggle to fear, calculation, selfishness, or similar objectionable motives. In this, they remained true to themselves, and one cannot ask more of them. The gap existing between them and the modern proletariat can not be bridged.”

Naturalism was not the last phase of the literature of the declining bourgeoisie. A number of others followed. Perhaps not even the “new objectivity” constitutes its last stage. That which represented the socialistic semblance in naturalism is today—at a more advanced stage of bourgeois decadence and at a more developed stage of

the revolutionary movement—represented by the “communistic” semblance. This, too, is of course, to be taken objectively and not subjectively.

What of Working Class Art?

Concerning the possibilities of the working class to create its art while it is still struggling for power, Mehring said: “In other words: when the declining bourgeoisie can no longer create great art, the rising working class itself can not as yet create great art, though an ardent longing for this art may dwell in the depths of its soul.”

He especially considered it to be impossible for theatres founded by the proletariat before the conquest of power, or dependent on the proletariat such as the free folktheatres of his time, to pave the way for a “renaissance of dramatic art.” This is quite impossible for economic reasons, but not only because of these. A definite need of them does exist. They can become a modest, though not ineffective force in order to purify the taste of the workers, to further their cultural development, and in this way ultimately serving their struggle for emancipation. It is, however, necessary to observe the “correct limit.” They (the theatres) must not forget their proletarian origin and must not enter into unprincipled alliances with capitalist enterprises.

These limits drawn by Mehring are so securely founded in the essential character and the weapons of the proletarian class struggle before the seizure of power, that, today, they are just as correct as ever. Attempts to overstep these limits, whenever they are undertaken, must go to ruin. This does not happen accidentally, however, but because of inherent or essential reasons, i.e., either because of artistic reasons, or both combined. The fate of the Berlin Piscator-theatre up to now, (even prior to Hitler’s assuming power) from the artistic as well as economic viewpoint, affords ample proof of the simple truths established by Mehring.

On the other hand, Mehring saw unsuspected new possibilities arise from the victory of the proletariat for the development of art. He wrote: “The more impossible it is for a new epoch of art to develop out of the proletarian class struggle, the more certain it is, that the victory of the proletariat will bring about a new era of art, a more noble, a greater, a more splendid era then humans have ever laid eyes upon.”

This prophecy will prove to be completely to the point Its realization has already begun in our days. Some will object, asking: Well, has the first victory of the proletarian revolution in the Soviet Union already brought about a new “era of art”? We answer: None can or could expect that the new great will be there on “the day of the revolution,” completely armed, as was Minerva who sprang fully armed from Jupiter’s head. That can and will only be the case when Socialist construction has succeeded so well that “the springs of social wealth” will flow abundantly, when the chief energy of the working class will not be taken up by economic construction work and the defense against its capitalistic environment. That which can and does take place in the meantime is the development of powerful, rich, though frequently chaotic, beginnings of a new art. The dispute concerning the name, i.e. whether or not it is proletarian art, whether “proletarian art” is all possible, appears to us too scholastic and undialectical.

Just as the present period of transition—which we now have in the Soviet Union and with which every working class will have to start after its victory—is not separated by an abyss from classless society into which it will ultimately flow, so one can not draw a fixed line of demarcation between the art of this or that period of social development after the victory of the proletarian revolution.

Judging by content, the new art of Soviet Russia is undoubtedly already revolutionary and proletarian. It drew its material successively from the great and shaking events of the revolutionary upheaval and civil war, and later from those of the socialist construction and reconstruction of economy and social life in general. The new forms corresponding to the new content have not as yet been found. They will be found; one can not arbitrarily think them out or construct them artistically. Their creation has always been and always will be the work of artistic genius. The history of literature illuminated by Marxian methods, as Mehring offers it, can be of good service in a positive as well as negative manner. Positive, insofar as the new forms of art do not arise out of nothing, but have always taken up newly applied changed, and recast elements of older forms; negatively, insofar as it shows that isolated efforts to attain a new form disregarding content lead nowhere.

The same holds true for language which, in a certain elementary sense, can also be conceived as of “new form.” Neither its simple neglect nor its arbitrary creation from the depth of the literary soul, results in real, new vital forms. As a rule, the real renewal takes place by drawing from the innermost layers of the language of the people as well as from the wealth of past vigorous literary periods.

The literary research and critical work of Mehring contributed worthwhile lessons and stimulation to this truly revolutionary task in the field of literature and art.

PDF of full issue: https://archive.org/download/road-to-communism_spring-1935_2_2/road-to-communism_spring-1935_2_2.pdf