I am inspired by my good friend "Loon" to write short reviews of my readings this year. Though initially skeptical, I found Mao's "Little Red Book", as translated into English by the Foreign Language Press, rather useful in fully conceptualizing Marxism-Leninism as an applicable science amongst people in class society: that is, a worthwhile compliment, say, to Lenin's writings on the state and its functions, which can sometimes feel a bit removed from the so-called "day-to-day" machinations of the populace. Of particular interest and worth, I'd say, are his quotations on the Communist Party and Democratic Centralism, Discipline, Art and Culture, and Study. I find his writing on the practice of literary-artistic and political evaluation especially compelling. I'll offer a quote here for safekeeping and consideration:
"We deny not only that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable political criterion, but also that there is an abstract and absolutely unchangeable artistic criterion; each class in every class society has its own political and artistic criteria. But all classes in all class societies invariably put the political criterion first and the artistic criterion second...What we demand is the unity of revolutionary political content and the highest possible perfection of artistic form. Works of art which lack artistic quality have no force, however progressive they are politically. Therefore, we oppose both works of art with a wrong political viewpoint and the tendency towards the 'poster and slogan style', which is correct in political viewpoint, but lacking in artistic power. On questions of literature and art we must carry on a struggle on two fronts" (138).
Mao follows this analysis, the language of which I find well-constructed (think, say, the difference between "wrong politics" and "wrong political viewpoint", the latter better at stipulating the issue inherent in attempting to sever art from politics), with the notion that, still, settling the question of "right and wrong" in artistic creation should not be "in summary fashion", but rather through open discussion in suited, field-specific circles (138). This, paired with his analysis of intellectuals in the vanguard, and their often misguided authority in Lenin's greater "revolutionary machine", offers, at the least, food-for-thought for those working in knowledge production with commitment to Marxist political education and proliferation.