Communist Party of Australia


The Guardian

Current Issue

PDF Archive

Web Archive


Press Fund


About Us

Why you should ...

CPA introduction

CPA Policies

CPA statements

Contact Us

facebook, twitter

Major Issues





Climate Change



What's On







Issue #1778      May 24, 2017

Subverting radical culture

How do the ruling classes manipulate art and culture to secure political consent for oppression and exploitation? Two exhibitions on the 1917 revolution in Russia go some way towards providing an answer.

Most historians accept that the February and October revolutions in that year were both clear improvements on the tsarist autocracy that preceded them.

And most cultural historians also recognise the explosion of creativity and widespread democratisation of culture which followed the October revolution.

Art and cultural activities suddenly became exciting, accessible and relevant to ordinary Russians.

But these are uncomfortable facts for our current rulers, who must crush any hopes for political or cultural progress if they are to stay on top.

There are two ways they can do this. One is to construct a biased and misleading narrative which ignores historical evidence and downplays artists’ support for the revolution. That was on view in the recent exhibition at the Royal Academy, an openly one-sided and distorted presentation of its politics and art.

The second is to create a monumental fudge which obscures the real historical and cultural achievements of 1917, through a kind of chaotic eclecticism.

This is the strategy followed by the British Library in its current exhibition on the Russian Revolution, embodied in the mistaken and banal commentary offered by one of its curators in the Morning Star last week.

“Today, people are not so much concerned about the faults of capitalist society but are trying to find their way through the new challenges of the global world,” she asserted.

How on Earth anyone can write this in the middle of an election campaign in which the Labour Party is quite clearly trying to address the faults of a capitalist society which concern us all is beyond belief.

She provides an individualistic focus on the “personal stories” of those involved and the “individual interpretations” of visitors to the exhibition, rather than promoting a broader, historically-based understanding of Russian history.

This is a cop-out because curatorial practice, including the type of contextual and supporting material supplied, is bound to influence visitors’ perceptions.

It is also disingenuous, because the curators do have a message. They believe that the exhibition “can convey a simple idea that violence can only create more violence in response.” This is sloppy thinking.

History is full of instances where individuals and classes have violently seized control of commonly held resources and have been unwilling to give them up peacefully.

Oppressive rulers have had to be challenged, defeated and restrained by force as well as by peaceful argument, in order that most people can have a fair share of the Earth’s resources.

Of course, peaceful persuasion is best. But what alternative is there to force if that doesn’t work to end exploitation? Would slaves, peasants and serfs have ever been freed without their violent, illegal rebellions?

The “violence breeds violence” message conceals a defeatist political agenda. When the law itself is nothing more than a codification of unjust and oppressive social and economic relationships, it has to be challenged and changed by every means at our disposal.

Coincidentally – or perhaps not – both exhibitions have been sponsored by the Blavatnik Foundation, the beneficiary of Britain’s second richest man Leonard Blavatnik.

He made a huge fortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accompanying legalised robbery by private individuals and corporations of the wealth built up by the Russian people since 1917.

So money stolen from the Russian people is used to fund cultural exhibitions which distort the truth about Russian history. That is how dominant classes manipulate art and culture to secure consent for exploitation and oppression.

Have there ever been more obvious examples of the increasing corruption of our cultural institutions by corporate capital, masquerading as philanthropic or charitable foundations?

A key demand of any progressive arts and culture policy must now be the complete abolition of private sponsorship of our common culture and heritage.

Morning Star

Next article – Girls play strong

Back to index page

Go to What's On Go to Shop at CPA Go to Australian Marxist Review Go to Join the CPA Go to Subscribe to the Guardian Go to the CPA Maritime Branch website Go to the Resources section of our web site Go to the PDF of the Hot Earth booklet go to the World Federation of Trade Unions web site go to the Solidnet  web site Go to Find out more about the CPA