5

p There are probably few problems in the field of aesthetics which are of such serious and immediate political significance as the development of national artistic cultures. Whatever aspect of it one takes—whether it be the national peculiarities of an artistic culture, the class, national and international elements in it, the national style or genres of a national art—one invariably touches upon the subject of the interrelations of different peoples and different social groups in society. Therefore this problem demands a very thoughtful approach.

p It is generally acknowledged that the national question is one of the most vital issues of modern times. It is difficult not to concur with this view—especially today, when the mighty forces of the national-liberation movement have stirred into action in the East, when the social and national-liberation movements in the Western capitalist countries are closing ranks and becoming increasingly intertwined, and when the experience gained in solving the national question in the Soviet Union and other socialist states is constantly winning newer and newer adherents in various parts of the world.

p But the problem of national relations demands great attention under conditions of socialism as well. History has irrefutably proven that socialism completely eliminates national oppression and exploitation of man by man and ensures not only legal but also actual social equality for all peoples. But it is equally clear that it is wrong td identify class and national relations; for whereas socialism eliminates class antagonisms, and whereas class distinctions are gradually erased in the course of communist construction, then this cannot be said of all national peculiarities: the ones that tend to fade away are those which in their origin and social essence are bound up with survivals of the past in people’s consciousness and way of life.

6

p International, Lenin stressed, does not by any means imply antinational. On the contrary, nations and national cultures flourish on the ground of proletarian internationalism. Lenin resolutely spoke out against those who, identifying and confusing national prejudices with nation, maintained that with the triumph of socialist revolution nations would die out forthwith. Objecting to the arguments of the leftist deviationists, who rejected the nation in the name of the “world republic" of Soviets Lenin declared at the Eighth Party Congress: “This is splendid, of course, and eventually it will come about, but at an entirely different stage of communist development."  [6•1  It was even logical to suppose that some inessential features tied in with climatic and other conditions of life will still remain after communism has become an integral part of the life of all peoples.

p As L. I. Brezhnev underlined in his speech on the 50th anniversary of the USSR, national relations in socialist society are “a constantly developing reality, which keeps putting forward fresh tasks and problems”. So long as there are nations—and national differences, Lenin said, will also exist a very long time after the victory of communism on a world-wide scale—national relations will demand unremitting attention. This is not because they entail any kinds of “eternal” conflicts, as bourgeois ideologists and revisionists of all shades maintain, but because the economic and cultural development of socialist nations is accompanied by a growth in the national consciousness of the people and in their sensing of their own international unity and national dignity; because in the course of the development of national relations in all fields of life, including the sphere of culture and art, new questions keep arising which demand solutions. Besides, under socialism there are specific national interests which must be harmonised with the public interest in the general course of communist construction. This is the objective side of the problem. At the same time the problem of national relations has its own subjective side, as it were.

p With the triumph of socialism genuinely amicable co-operation is established for the first time in history among all classes of society, all its social groups, and all nations and nationalities. However, even so nationalistic survivals still remain and are a hindrance to nations’ flourishing and achieving rapprochement. These survivals are kindled and exaggerated in every way possible by bourgeois ideologists of the West.

p In general it is naive to think that with the triumph of worker 7 and peasant power, successes in economic development will automatically lead, of their own accord, to the elimination of all nationalistic survivals. Economics is not everything; the policy of strengthening and expanding international ties and relations of proletarian internationalism also acquires huge significance. It stimulates both a feeling of “family unity" and a feeling of national pride, pride in the contribution of one’s people to the common cause of communist construction, a feeling of patriotism which forms on the basis of proletarian internationalism and possesses enormous creative force.

p Thus, even in conditions of developed socialism, when society has long been rid of social and national oppression, when both the legal and actual equality of nations are ensured and they have been granted national statehood, when an indestructible union of socialist republics has been created, that is—to use the words of L.I.Brezhnev—when “we have successfully dealt with those aspects of the national question that we have inherited from tho prerevolutionary past”, we are still not entitled to shun the problems of the development of nations and their arts.

p The notion that with the triumph of socialism, national relations become a secondary or immaterial matter and only warrant attention because nationalistic survivals remain, has nothing in common with Marxism. Such an idea is nothing more than a nihilistic prejudice towards the national, one which objectively invigorates nationalistic survivals and may do very great harm. This is especially so today, when the advocates of the bourgeois way of life are trying their best to undermine the unity of the working people both within the world socialist system as a whole and in every socialist country by kindling nationalistic prejudices, isolating the national from the international and setting them in opposition to each other.

p All this equally applies to the sphere of art and aesthetics, especially since, in the opinion of many bourgeois theoreticians, progress in artistic culture and the universal elements in this culture supposedly exist in contradiction to the “spirit of nationality”. According to their viewpoint, one can only talk about the national in art in reference to the “infantile” stage in a people’s advancement; the development of professional art allegedly puts an end to everything of national or folk origin. This theory, which expounds a “universal”, “super-national” artistic culture, is still in circulation to this day, although it was dealt a crushing blow long ago by the practical results of the October Revolution. For over the expanses of a vast country populated by many nationalities it was indisputably shown that an international artistic culture arises and 8 grows stronger not in spite of national development, but through the all-round development of the progressive and vital potentialities of national artistic cultures—in the process of their creative co-operation on a socialist basis.

p Inasmuch as it stood on the so-called “cultural crossroads between East and West”, Soviet multinational art absorbed a variety of progressive national traditions. That is why the experience gained in the progress of the peoples of the USSR towards socialism is so extraordinarily instructive in this respect. Our unified, multinational socialist culture serves as a prototype of the future for all continents. Even back at the First Congress of Soviet Writers Maxim Gorky noted that the multi-racial, multi-lingual literature of all our republics was emerging as a united whole before the eyes of the Soviet proletariat, the revolutionary proletariat of all countries and sympathetic writers of the whole world.

Naturally, our country does not foist on others its massive wealth of experience in achieving a socialist solution to the national question in all spheres of social life, including the field of art, but neither do we make a secret of it. The Soviet people know that reciprocity, co-operation and creative communion between national artistic cultures are a mighty factor behind spiritual growth. Of this they are convinced first and foremost through their own experience. Thanks to the triumph of socialism and the consistent implementation of the Leninist national policy, we have rid ourselves of national enmity for ever and embarked upon a practical course of truly fraternal co-operation between peoples in the fields of economic, political and cultural relations.

I

p The formation of a unified and integral artistic culture common to all the peoples of the USSR was no easy task. This is particularly understandable if one considers that before the October Revolution the peoples of our country were at different stages of cultural and artistic development. Moreover, the contrasts between them were quite glaring: some of them boasted an art which held an honoured place in world culture, while others still lived under feudal and tribal relations and had nothing but their folklore. The latter had to be ensured a rapid ascent to the pinnacles of socialist art—and with due consideration for all the diversity in their mode of life.

p However, this difficult task was brilliantly fulfilled. Having cast in their lot with the revolution, the artists of all the peoples of the 9 Soviet Union were helped along by the irresistible stream of life itself. The spirit of the revolutionary events found its way into their works. Naturally the historical process of self-discovery among the various peoples took distinctive national forms, but all national arts were nourished by a common life-giving source born of the revolution: artists were inspired by the ideas of a new world, the problems of building it, by characters and themes which could be liberally drawn from the life of the emancipated masses. This is what accounts for the creative resonance of our national artistic cultures—a resonance which was distinctly heard from the first days of Soviet power—and the innovatory essence of both our art as a whole and that of each nation taken separately. This creative collaboration also laid down the principal course of development of Soviet art, for all artists of our boundless homeland, regardless of the national material from which they created their works, were guided by one lodestar—socialism. Against its standards both individual artists and whole national cultures sized themselves up and appraised their creative work, for in revolution, in the peoples’ socialist aspirations, they found a fulcrum for their innovatory quests, their creative darings.

p National artistic cultures took various approaches to the common problems of creating new forms of life, but all these approaches were simply different facets of a single social and aesthetic ideal common to the working people of all our country’s nations and nationalities and to the revolutionary proletariat of the entire world. Each of the peoples of our multinational state expressed and interpreted it in the specific national form that was native to it; but these forms were simply distinctive aspects and features of a unified—and essentially socialist—conception of the new man, whom the revolutionary epoch was creating in its own image and likeness. “Seizing on" these features of the new man, art not only reflected what was happening in the thick of life but took an active part in the moulding of a man. It sketched the new man as artists of various peoples saw him in their depiction of life—in his actions and deeds, in his links with and relations to revolutionary reality, in the struggle against everything obsolescent or holding back progress.

p The art born of the October Revolution looked boldly into the future. True, this future was conceived of at first in terms that were still rather too general and diffuse, but it was a “down-to-earth” dream that emerged from life itself, a dream which originated in the mass practice of millions and anticipated the natural course of history. Perhaps this explains the fact that—in literature for example—the socialist, communist social and aesthetic ideal was 10 first embodied in lyrical forms of artistic expression. It appeared here as a new poetic attitude to the world that was also a political attitude at the same time. And although at first this poetic attitude to the world did not always attain artistic maturity, it burst into the field of art with a powerful impact, because it turbulently pulsated through life itself and gradually became the flesh and blood of art, its nerve, its artistic thought. The artist stood close to where the masses were building a new world with their hands. He looked at the world through the eyes of a revolutionary, through the eyes of a politician, poetically interpreting everything that was being created, revealed and enriched in the revolutionary practice of the masses, in the fierce battles of the class struggle, in the process of creating a new, socialist humanism.

p Needless to say, the road that led to the creation of a new socialist humanism was not an easy one. Many artists only found it after an agonising struggle with their own selves, with their own prejudices, with attitudes that had taken shape over many centuries. But life in its progressive development led them unswervingly towards the socialist, communist ideal, while this ideal—by entering into the artist’s soul, becoming his thought, his feeling, his conviction—helped him to see the old in a new light and the new in the context of its inexorable struggle with that of the old which was moribund. And although the method of socialist realism did not immediately become the essence of our art and emerged at first in primitive forms in those peoples which were making the transition to the new life from a precapitalist structure, it was socialist realism that gave new impetus to art and ushered in a glorious era in the ideological and aesthetic development of every Soviet artist, every people of our homeland, and all progressive humanity.

p The conditions of developed socialism created new and incomparably broader opportunities for the ideological and aesthetic growth of national artistic cultures, for the fruitful development of Soviet art in a striking diversity of national forms, styles and colours. And today we have a whole community of cultures, socialist in content.

p Now that the Soviet Union has entered the 54th year of its existence, the international essence of the Great October Revolution and those changes which it brought with it are revealing themselves with special clarity in the life and consciousness of people, in their ideology and psychology. A historically new community of people—the Soviet people—and a corresponding united multinational artistic culture have arisen and now exist in our country without doing away with any national features at all. 11 This culture is a new and unprecedented phenomenon. It develops on its own socialist base, stimulating the growth of all national cultures. And on looking back and closely studying the process of its formation, the magnitude of what has been created can be distinctly seen. The process of raising and gradually evening out the levels of the Soviet peoples’ economic, cultural and artistic development by means of assistance from the more advanced to the less advanced peoples has been under way in our country since the very first years of Soviet power, a process headed at all stages by the working class. Under developed socialism the old distinctions in levels of economic, social and political and cultural development have ceased to exist. Today all republics of the Soviet Union have a powerful and diversified industry, large-scale and highly mechanised agriculture, and an advanced science and culture. A new type of nation has arisen—the socialist nation, free from class antagonisms, united by the common character of the vital interests of all its social groups under the leadership of the working class. This indestructible union of free republics has become firmly entrenched. The prejudices and antiquated national distinctions in the culture and way of life of all our country’s peoples are being eliminated with new vigour. Also proceeding at an intensive pace, moreover, is another process, whereby national artistic cultures are being brought closer together, mutually enriched, and encouraged to draw upon their,resources—a process of all-round development on the basis of the best national traditions and international artistic experience of the Soviet peoples. The emergence of the Soviet way of life has been accompanied by the formation of a new, Soviet, man, who has matured and is developing within the unity of his international and national interests, thoughts and feelings, and all his spiritual qualities, including his emotional and aesthetic ones.

p As was emphasised at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, we are now witnessing a process in our country whereby the socialist nationalities are not only flourishing themselves, but gradually drawing closer together. This is taking place under conditions characterised by the consolidation and development of a new historical community of people, the Soviet people, and by new harmonious relations between classes, social groups and all peoples—relations of fraternity and cooperation. Moreover, the national interests of the Soviet state are inseparable from the struggle for cohesion among the socialist countries and the world communist movement.

p The clauses on the development of national relations under developed socialism in the documents of the 24th Congress of the CPSU were elaborated further and specified in L.I. Brezhnev’s 12 report on the occasion of the USSR’s 50th anniversary. They are also fully relevant to the problems of national artistic cultures.

p Our party has comprehensively outlined: 

p —the essence of the culture of the multinational Soviet people and the prospects for the development of this united, socialist and internationalist in its content artistic culture; 

p —the dialectics of the national and international, universal, in the advancement of developed socialist society’s artistic culture—a culture which embraces the most valuable features and traditions of the art of each of the Soviet peoples and, in its turn, exerts a favourable influence on their development and spiritual enrichment; 

p —the decisive significance of socialist content and the necessity of consolidating in every possible way the international foundations of the national artistic cultures of the Soviet peoples and the great creative force of the international factor in their development; 

p —the social essence of national peculiarities under socialism, and their expression in artistic culture; 

p —the process of forming, on the basis of socialist internationalism, a communist social and aesthetic ideal and a common method of socialist realism as well as national styles and artistic forms of it, so that common international features become more and more visible in the variety of the national forms of Soviet socialist culture; 

p —the role of socialist realist art in educating the masses in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and Soviet patriotism, in the struggle against bourgeois nationalism and each and all of its manifestations; 

p —the universal historical significance of the world-wide artistic culture of socialism, its influence on the artistic development of humanity, and the fundamental distinction in the processes of internationalisation of economic and cultural life under socialism and capitalism.

p The success of socialism in spiritually enriching the lives of peoples and their cultures is great and indisputable. Today anyone can see for himself that nothing is more capable of reviving, stimulating and developing all that is most human in man than the rich soil of proletarian internationalism. It ensures the socialist development of national .feelings as well. This is reflected in works of art. Remaining the distinctive artists of their people, the creators of these works direct themselves to depicting the life of both their own and other peoples, sketch their positive features and their participation in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of the world under the leadership of the working class—the leading 13 force of socialist, communist renewal. But socialism not merely elevates man, liberates him from a slavish feeling of humility and oppression, and helps him to attain a feeling of national dignity, nor does it merely fill this feeling with socialist content. It engenders in Soviet people a wholesome sense of the great community of the peoples of the USSR. This feeling of pride on the part of the Soviet man, which is common to all nations and nationalities of our country, represents—as L. I. Brezhnev noted in his report on the 50th anniversary of the USSR—“a feeling that is vast, allembracing and immensely rich in content. It is broader and more profound than the natural national feeling of each of the peop.les forming our country”.

p In the conditions created by such a historical community as the Soviet people, the concept of “one’s own”, “kindred” and “native” is much richer and grander in content than ever before. It embraces our entire socialist homeland. Everything socialist, communist “in oneself” and “in others" becomes “native”, “one’s own" and “kindred”, and everything that impedes and contradicts socialism and communism “in one’s own country" and “in others" is rejected by the consciousness and feelings of Soviet man. Besides, even those “native” and “kindred” things which are “close by" acquire for us a significance and grandeur of their own only due to our international experience, for they are created with the direct participation of all Soviet peoples. In this regard the economic, political and cultural ties of this united family have strengthened to such an extent that the Soviet people have acquired a new spiritual image: all of them, regardless of national affiliation, are united by a socialist patriotism and internationalism, by a thirst for vigorous activity in the name of communism, by class solidarity with working people of all countries, by an implacable hostility towards social and colonial oppression and towards national and racial prejudices. And this is understandable: under socialism the ideals of the working class are adopted by all working people, all social groups of society, all nations and nationalities. But the revolutionary consciousness of the working class is, of course, inseparable from socialist internationalism, which harmoniously combines national feelings with the united family feeling of the peoples of the USSR, of world socialism, of the international communist movement, and does so without permitting any contraposing of them. This monolithic, many-coloured blending of the thoughts, feelings and volitional impulses of Soviet man as a patriot and internationalist represent the most striking expression and manifestation of his social essence. And this essence is socialism. It embraces all aspects both of the national being and 14 consciousness of each Soviet people and their attitude towards one another, towards the peoples of the socialist community, towards the working people of the whole world. This is our greatest achievement, and it is one of world-wide historical significance.

p The Communist Party is taking a decisive stand against both the ignoring and the inflating of national peculiarities. Educating the masses in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, it has always waged an implacable struggle against each and all forms of nationalism and chauvinism. The Party does everything to ensure that the fraternal union of the Soviet peoples is continually filled with new vitality and grows stronger day by day, year after year.

p The continuous consolidation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is a new historical community—the Soviet people—is accompanied by progressive development on the part of its artistic culture, which embodies the spiritual and aesthetic unity of the socialist nations. Moreover, the internationalist consciousness of the Soviet people has a most vigorous influence on its aesthetic sense. Not only does it enrich the aesthetic ideas of every nation and nationality, but it also helps them to understand the spiritual world of their own and other peoples more fully and comprehensively, to value highly everything lofty and beautiful that is born of creative labour and of the mind and heart of the united family, and to gain a deeper knowledge of the social, political and ideological unity of the Soviet peoples. In his own day Maxim Gorky noted how important it was that artists should create talented works not only about life of their own people but about those of other Soviet peoples. This helps the peoples concerned to gain a closer and better knowledge of one another and, at the same time, promotes the exchange of progressive ideas, including aesthetic ideas, by enriching the socialist content of every national culture and strengthening the traditions of socialist realism in art which are common to all peoples of the USSR.

p Life itself and the historical laws governing social and artistic development demand that at the present time, in conditions of developed socialism, the international spiritual community of the Soviet people and common Soviet artistic traditions be strengthened in every possible way. The flourishing of national artistic cultures leads to consolidation of their international unity, which in turn contributes to the all-round flourishing of national arts.

p That is why the problem of developing national artistic cultures cannot be restricted in scope. This fact makes it all the more difficult to agree with those who, turning their backs on the present day, see genuinely national features only in antiquity, in those 15 features of national culture and art which are the product of patriarchal times. These theoreticians clearly fail to realise that national consciousness is in a state of constant development freeing itself from the prejudices of the past on the basis of socialism, and that national survivals die out but national psychology remains; moreover, this psychology is much different from that which was characteristic of our country’s various peoples and social strata before the October Revolution. Consequenly, anyone who glorifies and idealises the patriarchal not only ignores the full extent of the Soviet peoples’ spiritual development but deliberately or unwittingly denigrates and belittles the socialist stage in their life and the significance of their culture’s socialist content. For it is precisely socialist culture that leads peoples out onto the broad road of artistic progress. The poet Yaroslav Smelyakov justifiably spoke of this:

p With most profound justification,
In quest of knowledge, eagerly
Today we delve in the foundations
Of national antiquity.

p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p But in the joys of exploration,
’Twould be a loss beyond repair
If we forgot the red-starred helmet
Which our Red Army used to wear.

p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p If we forgot, while busy digging
Among cathedral bric-a-brac
The second christening of Russians
In ’43, near the Dnieper’s bank.

p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is impossible to measure
The world-embracing breadth of mind
Thai came into our nation’s make-up
And linked it up with all mankind.  [15•* 

16

II

p Art is an extremely valuable means of promoting the historical self-discovery of entire peoples and the spiritual and aesthetic development of all mankind. Back in his own day Tolstoy stressed, in his discussion of history as science and as art, that history as art is less sequential than history as science in depicting the fortunes of nations and individual human lives, for art concentrates not on breadth but on depth; its content may range from describing the life of all Europe to describing the life and thoughts of a single person. Indeed, the distinctive feature of art lies in this very fact, that in portraying individual phenomena, tableaux and images, it reveals that which is common and typical. Thus the aesthetic value of artistic works in the historical development of mankind is directly proportional to the depth with which they deal with major problems of the life of entire peoples—problems of universal significance.

p Particularly revealing in this respect is the work of Mikhail Sholokhov. It represents an artistic chronicle of our country, a talented portrayal of the most significant, the most important stages in its life. These stages reveal most fully all the essence of our era, the era of revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, i.e. the tendencies of universal progress.

p Sholokhov’s works are usually about the Don Cossacks: And Quiet Flows the Don portrays the Civil War in this part of Russia, while Virgin Soil Upturned deals with collectivisation. But both the Civil War and collectivisation are shown in a way that links them with the life of the country as a whole; for the fate of Grigory Melekhov or Kondrat Maidannikov reveals not only the path of the Don Cossacks or the Russians, but that of all the other peoples of our homeland. And although these common features and processes—the Civil War and collectivisation of agriculture—take their own particular forms on the national soil of each people (thus in Soviet Central Asia they were marked by peculiarities unknown in Central Russia), the distinctive traits characterising the historical development of our country’s various peoples took shape not in spite of general laws but rather on the basis of them, in correspondence with them.

p This is why the work of Soviet writers of different styles reveals common links and attitudes, relates destinies common to the peoples of the USSR—and not to them alone. Much of what Sholokhov recounts is characteristic in various degrees of other socialist countries. Hence the enormous interest aroused there by, 17 say, Virgin Soil Upturned. Even so, general human experience cannot be reduced to similarites in the historical phenomena experienced by various peoples. Otherwise how can one explain the fact that in the European countries of the world socialist system, where there was no civil war, And Quiet Flows the Don enjoys as much success as Virgin Soil Upturned.

p One explanation that immediately suggests itself is that the peoples of the world take a lively interest in the life of the Soviet people as the first people to have stepped out on the road of socialism, in the political and moral image of Soviet man, which manifests the traits of universal communist ethics and aesthetics. Through their works Soviet artists help people in all parts of the world to feel, visualise and understand “the universal moral and historical significance of Soviet construction as a whole”, as Alexei Tolstoy put it. There is a large grain of truth in this consideration. The universal significance of works of art lies in their direct dependence upon what role the given people play in the progressive development of mankind in the given epoch.

p But this is not all. Although all Soviet artists have before them a reality that is full of supreme heroism and dramatic qualities, not every one of them is an artist of world significance whose works can be regarded as achievements of world culture; by no means all of them have the ability to realise in their artistic practice those objective prerequisites which are determined by our country’s position in the modern world, by the role of that ideology, those morals, and those aesthetics of which the Soviet Union and our party are the bearers. Here much depends on the talent of the artist, the depth of his artistic cognition of the life of the people, on the leading present-day tendencies and the struggle between the two systems, that is, on the aesthetic merits of the very reflection of reality in its essential links and relations.

p In his own day Lenin comprehensively showed in his articles on Tolstoy that in showing the universal significance of a great writer, one must always visualise the era which the artist reflects and the way he does it, i.e., to what extent his artistic activity coincides with historical necessity, with the activity of the masses, with the revolutionary development of reality.

p In any case one thing is indisputable: the artist fully manifests his talent and his creative potentialities when he merges with the people in their revolutionary fervour and expresses in his works the objective demands of progressive social development. Lenin wrote that if the man before us is a truly great artist, then he should reflect in his works at least some of the essential aspects of the revolution. And the entire history of artistic culture, especially in 18 our own times, testifies to the fact that an inseverable link with life on the part of a writer, composer or painter—an inseverable link with the thoughts and feelings of the people—is a necessary condition for his all-round ideological and artistic development.

p Of course, this link differs from era to era. All kinds of human activity, including artistic activity, arc determined by the historical opportunities of the era and of the society in which the artist lives.

p Truth in art has an objective content. But in so far as an artisticwork is created by a person, it not only expresses his class aspirations but bears the stamp of a particular national character and particular personal and social experience. The artist is the child of his society and of his people. At the same time, however, the course of historical necessity always leaves scope for the manifestation of the abilities, interests and aesthetic tastes of the human personality, for various forms of artistic creativity and expression of the distinctive nature of the artist’s own ideological development. In other words, truth in art is not merely mechanical reproduction of an object; everything depends on the depth of the cognition, on the artist’s comprehension of reality, of his country’s progressive tendencies.

p Real art cannot comprehend life’s phenomena in general or nonconcrete terms, but neither can it comprehend them narrowly. An event mentioned in a work may only be of local significance, but the artist himself must have a broad outlook. As for the artist of socialist realism, he must understand the whole significance of the great transformations of the century and view what he writes about, what he relates, from these standpoints. He must understand the course of events and the direction they are taking. Only through such an approach can he reveal the destinies of people and the dynamics of social development in historical and concrete terms.

p Thus in studying the ideological and aesthetic merits of a work and its universal significance it is necessary to bear in mind at least three interrelated points: firstly, the essence of the era and the depth of the artist’s comprehension of its conflicts and of life’s leading tendencies in their development; secondly, the outlook and talent of the artist, his maturity and freshness of feeling, skill and originality; thirdly, the artistic form which crystallises the artist’s personal and social experience, elevating it to the heights of typifying generalisation and revealing the links of the people with the whole world history. But these links can be revealed in a work in various ways—through a single character or through a group, by depicting the life of one people or many peoples, as long as it is clone in a striking, impressive and artistically convincing fashion. Yet all the same this becomes possible owing to the fact that an 19 artistic form has the ability to reveal the universal and the typical through the individual and the singular. The deeper these universal links with reality are revealed, the greater the significance of a work of art’s universal content. It should only be borne in mind that what is meant here is the depth of artistic cognition of reality in a work’s unity, of content and form, and not merely its construction.

p As far as a work’s construction is concerned, the degree of generalisation of life’s phenomena in it may vary. The most general may acquire symbolic significance. But this does not mean that a symbol in art is necessarily “more universal" in its content than a character shown in the concrete everyday relations and features of ordinary life. A symbol is often more universal in terms of impact, but this is certainly not always the case in essence. A work packed with everyday life experience may go considerably deeper in its knowledge of life, strength of feeling and beauty of its ideas than an artistic image, a symbol. Moreover, a symbol in art only acquires profound meaning when it has concrete historical content and rests upon the best traditions of national and world artistic culture. Finally, a symbol in art does not necessarily have to take on an abstract form; it may also be revealed in all the concrete terms of daily life, as, for example, the image of Grigory Melekhov. The universal in art is characterised by the symbol, the ideological and aesthetic quality, the depth, objectivity and truth of comprehension of historical reality and the era’s revolutionary substance in the form of a consummate artistic image.

p Nevertheless, certain scholars, some of them quite conscientious researchers of literature and art, suppose that a work of art’s significance for all mankind is determined according to whether it is recognised or not by the majority of people. With this it is impossible to concur, and not only because it is difficult sometimes to consider the opinion of the majority, but also because it is impossible to substitute subjective criteria for objective ones. It is perfectly evident that an analysis of the reasons for the popularity of artistic works is helpful in resolving the question of an objective criterion of the universal value of artistic phenomena, but even general meaningfulness cannot by itself be viewed as a criterion. The universal in art should be distinguished according to its meaningfulness and degree of dissemination. These aspects are undoubtebly interrelated, but they are not of equal significance, especially since, as works on the theory of literature and art have stressed time and again, the universal has limits to its recognition. And it is not acknowledged straight away, we might add. Moreover, in this respect different approaches should be employed with reference to different kinds of art and even different genres.

20

p However, there can be no doubt that the universal takes us beyond the bounds of individual national cultures, countries and continents onto the broad highway of world-wide historical artistic practice. In other words, the international significance of artistic values develops into a universal significance when they begin to reveal with great artistic force the revolutionary content of the era and the meaning of society’s national and international life in its world-historical phase, which promotes the artistic development of all mankind. At the same time we should view world-wide historical artistic practice in its dialectical development, distinguishing the universal in a work or national culture during its transition from one socio-economic formation (and its corresponding era) to another, within the context of these various formations, and, correspondingly, in the process of world art’s progressive advance—from stage to stage, from formation to formation—in their interrelations and unity. But we shall not analyse this complex and multi-plane problem here so as not to deviate from our theme.

p We shall merely note that the objective criterion of the universal significance of a work of art in our era is its ability to promote the advancement of individual peoples and mankind as a whole towards communism; for everything that meets the needs of the progressive development of society promotes communism in one way or another. This does not mean that a universal culture now includes only socialist realist works; it means that it also includes critical realist works by artists of the capitalist countries, but only to the extent that they reflect the essential phenomena of our times with veracity and aesthetic depth. Hence, the closer artists are to the reality underlying revolutionary transformations, to the struggles of peoples, the more actively they are involved through their works, and the stronger their solidarity with the progressive ideas of the century, the greater their opportunities for creating works worthy of pur era.

p The world socialist system is now a decisive factor in the development of mankind. This accounts for the great interest aroused in all parts of the world by the experience of the Soviet people and other peoples of the socialist countries. In the movement of the Soviet peoples towards socialism and communism there are quite a number of distinctive features. At the same time, however, it is significant that on the eve of the October Revolution Russia was a conglomeration of all kinds of social contradictions and this was reflected in the development of proletarian, peasant and national liberation movements, which fused into a single common stream. It is also apparent that some peoples set out on the road to socialism when they already possessed a developed 21 industry and culture, others proceeded to socialism from tribal forms of social consciousness and relations, bypassing capitalism. This is extremely instructive. For this same path is now also being followed by other peoples of the world which have embarked upon a socialist course of development. And it is precisely because we have reached the stage of developed socialism and accumulated so much ideological and spiritual, political, aesthetic and moral socialist experience that the works of Soviet art are winning huge public response throughout the world.

p It is the communist social and aesthetic ideal that most fully reveals the universal content of the era, for all the roads of progress today lead to communism in the final analysis. The best works of Soviet art embody the most humanistic aspirations of our century. Thus, through translations and screen adaptations these works quickly win the sympathies of people in various parts of the world.

p Take, for instance, the film “A Soldier’s Father”. It is impossible to view it without being moved. How much naive pathos, emotional warmth, courage and humaneness there is in the character and behaviour of the old Georgian who sets off to find his son on the battlefields! All this is congenial and understandable to people of the entire world. The same can be said of other talented Soviet works about the Great Patriotic War. By reflecting the heroics of everyday military life and portraying Soviet people, they assert in a highly artistic manner the most noble and righteous ideas and the lofty moral feelings, splendour and greatness of a people fighting for its freedom. Moreover, even when our talented artists portray the national character or a tableau of national life on a local scale, the problems which they raise are of world-wide historical significance. And the characters depicted by them are not circumscribed by any narrow national bounds.

p A work of Soviet art which takes shape on specific national grounds reveals, if it is a really significant work, not only special but also general features of the Soviet peoples’ being and consciousness and their spiritual character. The phenomena which an artist relates may be of a local or a world historical scale, the characters may be taken from his own or some other national milieu, but whatever the case may be, the events, phenomena and characters are shown from the standpoint of the leading revolutionary tendencies of the era, and these tendencies, these laws, are common to all nations and nationalities. It is these tendencies which in our era lead peoples to communism. Herein lies the strength of our art, of our communist ideal, which embodies in itself the most noble and splendid aspirations of mankind. The universal in the art of every era is that which 22 expresses the loftiest spiritual and aesthetic values of the peoples that correspond to the progress of mankind. It is those works which truthfully, in a perfect artistic form reflect the essential features of the life of the given people, the processes signifying the world-wide historical advancement of society.

p Thus a universal, international culture is not non-national; it cannot be viewed as something supranational. A universal artistic culture is replenished by the works of all peoples, big and small. It does not reject specific national peculiarities in modern conditions, but positively presupposes them and absorbs all the best created by each nation and nationality. At the same time it is precisely because works of this kind transcend narrow national bounds and attain world-wide significance that they are entitled to the name of universal. They always remain national in their affiliations and in their sources. However, consummate artistic representation of the era’s leading tendencies acquires—by virtue of becoming a fact—the most general significance, and the sphere of its aesthetic impact is not limited to the people concerned.

p It is sometimes said that the universal in culture is determined by specific national features. This is not accurate. To be sure, it is difficult to imagine a genuinely significant work of art with no specific national character. However, in the first place, there are works which are emphatically national and contain many ethnographical details, but which fail to convey the spiritual life of the people. In the second place, there are also works which vividly and tenderly describe moribund aspects of a particular people’s life, glorify national peculiarities and express not the mind of the masses but their prejudices, whereas the universal in art is always bound up with the new and progressive, with the mind of the people. And, in the third place, the history of culture testifies to the fact that by no means all the artists who hold an eminent place in national culture are thereby known abroad in the realm of world art. Moreover, although all national cultures participate in one way or another in the world artistic process, by no means all of them acquired world significance at every given moment. In order to determine the place of national art in the general world process, it is necessary first of all to place it in the framework of a world historical era, to understand whence and whither the cultural and artistic development of the given people is proceeding, to elucidate further to what extent it reflects the most progressive social relations of the century and the direction of historical development, and to ascertain how deeply and artistically it reveals its progressive socio-aesthetic ideal. Then, by analysing the concrete processes and phenomena of artistic culture, it will be possible to understand also 23 in what degree the art of a given people influences the structure of world artistic culture.

p There is every ground for asserting that world artistic culture develops through works national in their affiliations which reveal most fully, deeply and vividly the life of their time and its essential relations and attitudes. These works reflect the vital demands of society’s social and aesthetic development. Hence the continuity of mankind’s artistic development: each new generation is guided by the achievements of previous stages and augments and enriches artistic cultural values in new conditions. Consequently, the universal principle is also to be found in the art of the preceding eras. This can be traced easiest of all by analysing the so-called “eternal themes" which pass from century to century to be filled each time with new content. Our ideal does not reject the best that was earlier achieved by mankind, for socialist culture does not emerge in a vacuum or away from the road of civilisation, but as a natural result of the foregoing cultural development. But we go further. The communist is the highest expression of the universal: firstly, because it embodies the most noble—and historically realisable—ideas and aspirations of the masses, and, secondly, because, as it develops, the culture of a communist formation absorbs the achievements of all previous eras and develops them on a new basis which is conducive in every way to the flowering of the spiritual capabilities of the masses in general and every personality in particular.

p In the culture of the past one must separate the living from the stillborn, the sublime from the base, the great from the worthless, the universal from the transient. The process of developing communist artistic culture unavoidably gives rise to the problem of critically assimilating the legacy of the past and selecting values. For the cultures of different eras make different contributions to social progress. Moreover, in pre-socialist eras each of them was limited in its ability to bring it about, to say nothing of the fact that before socialism social progress was bought at the incredibly high price of the people’s sufferings and was not free from serious artistic losses. After a lengthy period of time, the universal elements of culture develop in the forms of class consciousness, but often, in the pre-socialist period, it did not coincide or fully coincide with objective cognition. Therefore, in the artistic culture of the past centuries there are quite a number of elements which reflect class subjectivism. Nor should one forget the narrow division of labour and, consequently, the conditions limiting the creative development of the personality and the masses in all class antagonistic formations.

24

p However, when discussing the class society, the universal instances in art should not under any conditions be metaphysically contrasted with its class content. Art in a class society always presupposes a class approach to the cognition of life and to its interpretation.

p In a class antagonistic society there is not and cannot be a “single stream" in the development of artistic culture. Neither is there nor can there be a non-class universal artistic culture, although ideologists of the exploiting classes have at times been inclined to present the ideals, causes and aspirations of their class as non-class and non-historical. In this regard the problems of class and popular elements or class and common human elements in art acquire important significance. They are important because in the conditions of an antagonistic society the universal emerged in a class form—for example, the honour of the nobility in the Middle Ages or enterprise of the bourgeoisie during the rise and development of capitalism. Both in life and in art these notions always contain certain class limitations. But it is equally evident that in the conditions of antagonistic formations the ruling classes ascribed to themselves features evolved in the course of historical development by the working people. This applies in equal measure both to those classes and social groups which at certain stages of historical development did not distinguish themselves from the people (the “third estate”), and those which lived at the expense of the people (for instance, the nobility under feudal conditions). But one must avoid vulgarisation. Thus, although for Pushkin the principle of class was, in the words of Belinsky, an “eternal truth”, at the same time he promoted social progress through his work, just as did the Decembrists, whose ideology and deeds define a whole stage in Russia’s liberation movement.

p It is wrong to allege that in the past all the artists of the ruling classes (regardless of their era) were defenders of the mercenary interests of a minority. This was not the case at all. As regards the Enlighteners of the 18th century, for example, Lenin noted that new social relations and their contradictions were then still in an embryonic state. He stressed in fact that the Enlighteners of the 18th century (who are generally regarded as leaders of the bourgeoisie) and the Enlighteners in Russia of the forties and sixties “quite sincerely believed in universal well-being and sincerely desired it, they sincerely did not see (partly could not yet see) the contradictions in the system which was growing out of serfdom" . Accordingly, no class self-interest manifested itself in them.

p Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that the role of different classes in the formation and development of national culture and 25 universal artistic values in various countries and eras tended to differ—or the fact that in the past universal elements in art frequently made themselves felt in spite of class prejudices and the self-interest of the exploiting classes. However, in expressing the various class aspirations of artists, all genuinely aesthetic values are free from class egoism. They give a true cognition of life in the light of the progressive socio-aesthetic ideals of their time and to the extent that the views of the artists correspond to these ideals, to the demands of social life.

p In the given case, however, we shall not embark on a special examination of this problem. We shall merely note that in an antagonistic society the class struggle is the driving force of cultural development. At the same time, the further general historical progress develops, the more the role of the working masses in the field of art and culture as a whole is to be observed, even under the conditions of the antagonistic society. This has an impact on all its spheres. “Minds,” said Karl Marx, “are always connected by invisible threads with the body of the people.” It would be incorrect to exaggerate the contribution of the exploiting classes to the formation of nations and their culture either in the modern era or in preceding ones; from the viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism a nation, like a national culture, cannot be viewed as the product of the creative energy of any one class—nobility or bourgeoisie. The basic role in the formation of national cultures in all periods of history was played by the working people. In view of this it is impossible to understand anything about the development of national cultures if one takes a non-historical approach to their analysis, without studying the struggle and interaction of all classes of society in these processes.

p In modern conditions the role of the people—the workers, peasants and working intelligentsia—in the formation and development of national artistic cultures has grown to an extraordinary degree. When we say that our era is an era of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world-wide scale, we are already thereby emphasising that in modern conditions the universal is expressed by socialist culture which has a decisive impact on the artistic development of mankind; while absorbing the universal in the art of previous centuries it selects all the finest and most valuable in it. Every class, upon coming to power, appraises the culture of the past in its own way. But in all pre-socialist formations the use made of the values of the past was one-sided. Only the working class—the bearer of a communist, universal culture—is free from this narrow and one-sided outlook. Not for nothing did Lenin point out that the work of Tolstoy, like that of any artist of 26 genius, can only he truly appreciated by the working class. The working class alone is able to draw the true conclusions from Tolstoy’s remarkably strong and sincere criticism of the autocratic serf state, the church, and the bourgeois-landowner civilisation, and to discard his reactionary ideas of “non-resistance to evil”, advocation of asceticism, all-forgivingness, etc.

p With the triumph of socialist revolution all social groups rally around the working class. In the conditions of the transitional period a socialist culture that is genuinely of the people becomes the dominant one, and then, with the elimination of each and every exploiting class, with the full victory of socialism, it becomes common to the entire people. This means that in conditions of socialism all values of artistic culture belong to the people, which actively and consciously participates in its creation with every possible support from the socialist state.

p A socialist, communist artistic culture does not, of course, arise in a vacuum. The ground for it is prepared by the entire course of previous history. However, this is not simply a continuation of the past; nor is it even simply a revolution in the field of culture. Revolutions in the development of artistic culture took place earlier, too. This is a special kind of revolution, one which opens up a new era in the history of mankind, when artistic culture no longer develops on the basis of private property but on that of public property. This is a qualitatively new culture: spontaneous social development gives way to a conscious process; an era of limited development of the personality gives way to one in which it blossoms to the full. By this very fact socialist, communist culture opens the door to genuinely historical phenomena in the artistic development of mankind. The working class is the first class in history to strive not for the perpetuation of its domination but for the surmounting of classes and all class distinctions. Its class interests fully correspond to the demands of social progress.

p In socialist society the class and the objective, the class and the universal coincide in cognition for the first time ever. The working class emerges here as the bearer of a universal culture, that is, a culture free from all fetters of private ownership relations. That is why namely the working class is able to unite around itself all working people and the flower of the intelligentsia. That is why it is capable of appraising and utilising everything of genius, everything genuinely great that is to be found in the art of all times and peoples, making these values the property of the broad masses of working people.

p Whereas in bourgeois society “mass culture" is an ersatz 27 phenomenon, in socialist society all culture and all its greatest values belong to the masses. Whereas earlier a narrow and limited class cultural inheritance prevailed, this assimilation now acquires a comprehensive character and all our artistic values shine forth with a true gleam. This means that in conditions of socialism everything of universal significance is put at the service of the people. The novelty lies in the character of this culture, for everything communist in its essence is common to all the people; universal in character.

p However, this does not mean that a universal socialist culture ceases to be a class culture in its content.

p In conditions of socialism classes still remain and, consequently, so do specific class interests; in the consciousness of a certain section of the people there are still survivals of the past. Apart from this, in modern conditions in the capitalist countries and the international arena an unabating struggle continues between two cultures—between the democratic, socialist culture on the one hand and reactionary culture on the other. And it is perfectly understandable why: for these cultures are opposed to each other in the basis of their world outlook, in their class roots. Therefore, it is natural that the class and ideological principles which these two cultures pursue and uphold are irreconcilable in their objective essence.

p However, this cannot by any means serve as an obstacle to the exchange of genuinely artistic values between peoples on the basis of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. On the contrary, in our times, when the scientific and technological revolution is becoming widespread in the world, the need for exchange of cultural values is growing. International detente is also promoting this. But, of course, co-operation in the field of culture is only possible when there is respect for the sovereignty, the laws and the customs of each country. Only on this condition will it promote social progress, the spiritual mutual enrichment of peoples, the growth of trust between them and the consolidation of the ideas of peace and good-neighbourliness.

p The Soviet Union has broad cultural ties with the countries of the socialist system and with other states as well. Within the world socialist community creative mutual enrichment between national cultures is growing deeper and consolidation of socialist culture is taking place. An ever more powerful impact on the development of national artistic cultures is being made by the working class in the capitalist countries: the artists which unite around it make up the leading force of artistic progress and stand forth as its standardbearers.

28

p In a word, the bearers of a universal culture in our era are the working class and its offspring, the world socialist system, which promotes the consolidation and development of everything progressive and democratic to be found in every national culture and thereby furthers the development of a universal culture expressing the vital demands of our century. Proceeding from this it can be said that in the modern era, with the existence of and struggle between two world systems, two ideologies, artistic works acquire a significance in direct proportion to the vigour with which they participate on the side of peace forces, democracy and socialism in the struggle against reactionary bourgeois ideology —directly proportional to the depth and degree of artistry with which they reveal to the working class, to all working people, to all mankind, the road to communism.

p The problems bound up with the study of national relations and national cultures are very complex and many-faceted. They demand close analysis, especially since the problem of the national and the international in art is in its essence a composite problem, like the problem of national relations as a whole. And the more complex the questions subject to research, the more refined and perfect the methods and modes of cognition and the greater the soundness, depth and thoughtfulness demanded by them. Unfortunately, upon examining the problems of national artistic cultures, their interaction and mutual enrichment, one sometimes comes across “hatchet work”.

p There can be no doubt that a great deal has been done in our country in studying national artistic cultures and the process of their mutual enrichment. Great benefit has been derived from the discussion that has taken place in recent years on problems of national relations. But it is equally clear that we cannot turn their various conclusions into a fetish. It is generally known that disputes give birth not only to truth but sometimes even to errors—extremes are tolerated, one-sidedness arises....

p They also make themselves known in works on the questions of national relations. On the one hand, it is sometimes declared that nations and national languages are now dying off or are being reduced to nil, or that the distinguishing feature of a nation in the Soviet socialist state is already now, or at least will be “with the establishment of the basis of the higher phase of communism”, only its national language. On the other hand, separate attempts are being undertaken to preserve out-of-date traditions and customs, and at times the internationalist structure of Soviet multinational artistic culture, the rapprochement of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR in modern conditions, and the 29 role of the mutual enrichment of national languages are underestimated; at other times we find a lack of understanding of the functions and spheres of activity of the Russian language, which in our country has historically become the common language of the inter-national associations of the peoples. All this is no more than a result of the instability of ideological and theoretical standpoints.

p The lack of solid scientific principles can also explain the fact that in examining the problems of national relations and national cultures, including artistic, some participants of recent discussions trusted strong epithets and the irrevocability and categorical character of their own judgements more than a profound analysis of the facts, their concrete and historical researching which, as Lenin taught, obliges one to “examine every question from the standpoint of how the given phenomenon arose in history and what were the principal stages in its development, and, from the standpoint of its development, to examine what it has become today”.

It is perfectly evident that only persistent and determined study of national relations and national artistic cultures on the basis of Marxist-Leninist methodology can yield an increment of knowledge and an explanation of new phenomena, and this is necessary both for an understanding of the process of the development of national artistic cultures in our country and in order to shape systematically its results in the spirit of MarxismLeninism, in the interests of the building of communism.