H O M E E X H I B I T I O N S G A L L E R Y M A N I F E S T O A R T  T H E O R Y L I N K S

ARMANDO ALEMDAR - A DIALECTICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ART MARXISM & PRAXIS Let us consider the dilemma that exists between social material conditions and political action. Schlomo Avineri aware of Marx's saying, 'philosophers have interpreted the world, but the point is to change it' observes that in 'Neue Rheinische Zeitung', 29 June 1848, "...Marx says that a merely political revolutions is nothing but the ultimate radicalisation of the dichotomy between the particular and the universal; it finally proves that political universality is illusory, since it shows that the state can realise its universality only by disregarding the particularistic content of civil society and abstracting from it. Such a one-sided universality does not constitute a synthesis that incorporates and overcomes particularism..any merely political insurrection of the proletariat trying to create politically conditions not yet immanently developed in the socio-economic sphere is doomed to fail...”18 Avineri sees lucidly that despite the fact that Marx interpreted the political disturbances in France in 1848 as a possibility to create conditions for a social revolution, at the same time Marx was against a political, armed, out and out war against the bourgeoisie. The Soviet revolution is a 20th century example. The impoverished masses and workers revolted, not allowing sufficient time for the right socio-historical conditions to develop. This violent fast-forwarding of the material dialectical process from a feudal social structure to communism disturbed a process which must evolve organically. The same error occurred in the rest of the eastern European countries after the 2nd World War. All the same Marxism should still be very much alive and well. What has happened in recent history was not the failure of Marxism itself, but the failure of the deformed versions of Marxism. As Gen Doy, a Marxist art historian in her book Materialising Art History correctly points this out: "...Marxism, far from being proved inadequate and flawed by the events of twentieth century history, still provides the best methodological framework from which to understand culture and its historical development...Marxism had very little to do with these (eastern European) societies after the late 1920s, hence their collapse cannot be regarded as a proof of Marxism's failure."19 It follows that an important task for an art historian should be to rescue Marx from these impatient followers, regardless of the nature of their allegiance. Doy has a pragmatic approach towards the issues of Marxism and Marxist Art History. She makes the distinction between Marxism and Stalinism advocating Trotsky and Marx to defend Marxism. Materialising Art History is a fascinating study about Marxism's connection to social history in interaction with ideology, politics, and art. Doy reminds us of Marx and Engels' three laws of dialectics. First the unity and interpenetration of opposites; second quantity transformed into quality; lastly negation of the negation. The first law pinpoints the antagonistic components within the object and states that nothing is static or fixed. The components are in constant movement within the object at the same time as with exterior factors, whether or not these exterior factors are material or immaterial. The second law draws an almost mathematical analogy. Activity multiplied by time results in change. Doy gives the classic example of the embryo's growth. The third law as Doy explains: "...In the course of the unfolding of inner contradiction, a change in the quality of an object takes place...the original thing and the prevailing force that transforms it are both themselves transcended and replaced by a new higher development incorporating aspects of the character of both."20 She talks about the Marxist example of the dialectical processes in the emergence of capitalism which develops the working class as a source of wealth. This emerging working class eventionally opposes and abolishes the ruling class becoming the one-class society. It cannot be over-emphasised that the element of time is of the essence in this process. "While we (Marx and Engels, A.B.) tell the workers: 'You have to endure and go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil war in order to change the circumstances, in order to make yourselves fit for power' - instead of that you say: 'We must come to power immediately, or otherwise we may just as well go to sleep...”21 The dialectical processes show us that the principles of the Communist Manifesto are already at work within a capitalist society. Furthermore, with all its aggressive language, there is no actual call in the Manifesto for an armed, social revolution. For Marx mankind shapes the world and humanises his environment. This dominion over his circumstances enables man to control the conditions in which he previously felt a victim. No longer is his consciousness determined by external forces. Mankind becomes the prime mover and the product of his own history. The power of the state would eventually lose its political character. Marx did not see society as a separate entity from the individual. "...The individual is the social being. The manifestation of his life, accomplished in association of other men - is therefore, a manifestation and affirmation of social life...(the individual man) is equally the whole, the ideal whole, the subjective existence of society as thought and experience..."22 Does acknowledgement of the individual as a social being create an opportunity to interpret the world in order to change it? For Marx one's relationship to others in society is not merely the means of their existence but also one's raison d'ętre. He sees the interaction and solidarity between individuals as the way to advance social change. An awareness of how the dialectical process evolves means the capitalist system is ripe for social change, and the unification of theory and practice foreseeable. However, some of the difficulties in tailoring the cloth of speculative philosophical theory to fit a practical mode of change remain. The tenuous link between philosophy's theoretical manifestation and reality is easily ruptured. Herein exists the danger of theory being about theory itself reflecting a merely contemplative attitude towards the task of changing society. This attitude, according to Marx, has the object in itself and is therefore object-less and cannot be related to praxis. However, Marx maintains that the way to overcome this problem is to allow philosophy to fully develop its interpretation of the world. Eventually it ceases to be a philosophy. As the distance between philosophy and reality dissolves, pure action occurs. According to Marx, perfecting theory is the way to change and transcend reality but he criticises Feuerbach, pointing to the lack of practically active elements often found in traditional materialism. The need is to recognise that it is only possible to change the world when we have understood it theoretically. In the Holy Family Marx again shows us how theory turns into praxis. "The criticism of those workers is not an abstract personality outside mankind; it is the real human activity of humans who are active members of society and who suffer, feel, think and act as human beings. That is why their criticism is at the same time practical, their communism a socialism that gives practical, concrete measures and in which they do not think but act..."23 There is therefore only an illusionary contradiction between the above and Marx's earlier writings in which he maintains that “..Revolutions need a passive element for this passive element is supplied by human needs that give rise to the possibility of realisation…Theory is only realised in people in so far as it fulfils the need of the people...Will theoretical needs be directly practical needs? It is not enough for thought to seek to realise itself, reality must also strive towards thought”. 24 For Marx life in the new society will have a fresh meaning. Life's purpose and activities are one and the same thing. The individual feels the need of others; social relationships become an end in themselves. Marx underlines the importance of the proletarian associations as the seeds that will grow in future society. There has never been a successful attempt to put Marxism into practice. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides a case and point. Yosip Broz Tito and the communist partisans waged a war against Fascist armies in the 2nd World War. Because the Yugoslav army was composed of multiple nationalities and ethnic groups banded together, after the liberation a country was formed with six republics and two autonomies which had the motto: brotherhood and equality. Tito was well aware of Stalin's abuse of Marxism in the Soviet Union when he made a politico-economical arrangement that was called the five year plan. Tito's Marxist integrity was obvious and pure Marxist philosophy was to be observed. After the initial five-year period the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was to disengage from the Soviet block. We know that Marx declined to offer a blueprint for a future society simply because the future is not an existing reality. Almost any discussion of the future inevitably turns to philosophical idealism discussing ideas that only exist in the consciousness of each thinker. This is why Marx never tried to rival the detailed plans of the so - called socialist utopians for a socialist society since for him future society will be determined by specific conditions under which it is established. These conditions cannot be predicted in advance. History continues to grow by human endeavour but this salient fact according to Marx has been misconstrued. Mankind has been enslaved by the fruits of his own labours produced for profitable purposes. Buildings, cars even furniture can take on an independent existence. Our common sense has become a kind of commodity in itself. For Marx mankind's conscious free will has the ability to contemplate its own nature objectively. However, in a class structured society the whole labour force depends on a minority that controls or owns the means of production. The labour force may not recognise itself in the world it has created. No longer an end in itself, their self realisation becomes instrumental only in the development of others.25 Shaping the material world develops one's individuality, and reveals what one has in common with others. Capitalist relationships are de-mystified.26 But even after this realisation the dialectical changes in society must come about gradually. In Critique of the Gothic Programme Marx describes the development of communism as a set of stages. These stages are necessary for the dialectical unfolding of the principles of an existing society. Marx does on one or two occasions hint at a possible plan for a future socialist society as in the Communist Manifesto. "Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable:(Numbers: 2,5, 7, 8, 10, 11 omitted AB) 1) Gradual limitation of property ownership in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes…abolition of rights of inheritance of secondary nature (brothers, nephews etc.)…3) A heavy progressive income tax 4) Organisation of labour on to State run agricultural bodies, factories; and the private managers (if they still exist) will have to give the same wage as the State run bodies 6) Centralisation of the credit systems by forming one national bank and abolition of private banks) Free education for all children in public schools 9) Developing associations of workers/citizens and gradually abolishing the differences between town and country 12) Concentration of the overall transport activity in the hands of the nation… however all those measures cannot happen instantly but gradually, each one is pulling with it the next one…"27 In the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia almost a replica of this plan was applied. Workers were taxed 50% of their wages. Education at every level was free as was the health service, including medicine. Roads were built voluntarily by the Yugoslav youth; transport was state-run. After the five-year plan a decentralisation act was enforced. Property and chattels were distributed equally among each member of society. The result, at least superficially, was that the grounds for the future birth of a one-class society were laid. Furthermore, it is interesting to observe how art and culture were perceived - again very differently than they were in the Stalinist Soviet Union. Art and culture committees existed autonomously from the state apparatus. Once selected an artist, a dancer, an author, who passed the selection process that they had been obliged to undergo received a state wage and free state accommodation as well as other benefits. Art was important in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which acknowledged that it is the cognition of life and one of the ways to perceive ourselves and our circumstances. There were absolutely no restrictions or censorship. Complete creative freedom was promoted. At the same time settlements developed comprised of multiple trades and nationalities and various imaginative architectural monuments were erected.28 After the 2nd World War in most of the Yugoslav republics especially those republics that were under Ottoman rule until 1913, a resolute battle was waged against the status quo. In the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1945 as much as 70% of the population was illiterate, an illiteracy inherited from the previous regimes. This percentage decreased to 5% after three decades.29 The paramount importance of education is emphasised in Das Kapital. Marx refers to the need for a well-rounded human being, instead of the dehumanised creature of capitalist society. The member of a future society will replace the detail-worker of today...reduced to a mere fragment of a man by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours...to whom the different social functions..are but so many models of giving free scope to his own natural powers. 30 Unexpectedly, controlled private business continued to trade although taxed at 75% of their income. Again this complies with Marx's plan delineated in the Communist Manifesto from which Avineri draws the following conclusion: " (The plan) ...does not include nationalisation of industry as such: it suggests nationalisation of land but not of industry. The means of production are not taken away from their private owners by a political fiat which, according to Marx, might result in economic chaos, outright political opposition and sabotage and serious dislocation of production. Private industry will be allowed to continue to exist surrounded by such a climate of political and economical arrangements that will slowly, in as peaceful and orderly a fashion as possible, have to transform itself."31 The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until Tito's death in spring 1980 was a good example of how Marxism could be put into praxis. But in 1990 after the Marshal's death the violent and gruesome disintegration that ensued meant that the crude communism of which Marx warned raised its nationalistic head. Marx was critical of other socialist movements because they accepted the first stage of socialism as the ultimate possibility, and a decadent corrupt society as the apotheosis of human development. BACK   FORWARD