defense of or attack upon proletarian writing? Of
course, not very much can be accomplished by this
method, since the Marxian ranks are far from re-
presenting a homogeneous front; but among the
more or less recognized left-wing critics- even
amongthe most uncompromising and strait-laced of
them-there is at least a theoretical, a verbal, ac-
ceptance of some of these fundamentals.
Accordingly, the following is submitted as a draft
resolution of such principles, which are to be ac-
cepted by all
pros
and
antis
preliminary to all dis-
cussionsof Marxian literature and criticism. (It is
basedupon objections recently raised by the writers
mentioned above, and upon an~wers abstracted
largely from Hicks' "Literature and Revolution,"
Freeman's introduction to
P1'oletarian Literature,
Phillips' and Rahv's editorials in
Partisan RC'Uriew,
and Edwin Seaver's article, "Caesar or Nothing.")
I.
Whereas the term propaganda as it is generally
used in this country connotes high-pressure adver-
tising and general misrepresentation of truth; and
whereas, when the word "propagandistic" is used to
meanthat all writing reflects its author's outlook on
life, it is too all-inclusive a defin.ition to be useful;
andwhereas further, Marxians do not condone writ-
ingin which a political "message" is
grafted
upon a
literary work-
Be it resolved that henceforth, the term propa-
ganda shall be dropped from all literary discussions;
and that the problem involved shall be dealt with
in terms of the relation between the artist's attitude
toward the world and his creative product-terms
which have a reputable usage in literary criticism.
2.
Whereas the slogan, art is a weapon, is ordinarily
conceived of in a vulgar utilitarian manner; and
whereas the effects of literature are not ordinarily
the same as the effects of a direct appeal to action'
likea newspaper editorial or a soapbox speech-
Be it resolved that henceforth all critics shall not
identify proletarian literature with political agita-
tion,but shall differentiate between the uses of litera-
ture and those of other social instruments.
3· Whereas revolutionary fiction and poetry are
constantly criticized in the revolutionary press (and
especiallysince we have just witnessed the spectacle
of a revolutionary author slaying a new proletarian
novel as decisively as a bourgeois critic praised the
same book) ; and whereas further, no party decree
canproduce art, nor a party card endow a commun-
ist with artistic genius-
Be it resolved that henceforth all
antis
shall re-
frain from accusing' Marxian critics of applauding
proletarian novels simply because they are prole-
tarian and of berating bourgeois works because they
are bourgeois-and that all would-be Marxian critics
shall refrain from using such criteria.
4· Whereas proletarian literature is not a sect, a
theology, etc., nor even the expression of a single
school or type of writing but the literature of an
PARTISAN
REVIEW AND ANVIL
entire social class contammg numerous groupings
and tendencies; and whereas there is no official party
line in literature, and numerous disagreements do
exist among recognized Marxian authors-
Be it resolved that when attacking the Marxian
point of view, critics shall not pick out a single
article by a single writer, treating it as an official
statement of the Marxian position and attributing
its weaknesses to all proletarian criticism
j
and that
in judging a revolutionary book, they shall consider
it not as an official pronunciamento of a party but as
a volume reflecting the personal taste and opinion
of its author or editor.
5· Whereas critics define proletarian literature as
by
or
about
workers, although Marxians point out that
it is the present outlook of the author and not his
subject-matter,
characters'
or class origin which
determines whether his work is proletarian or not-
Be it resolved that in future discussions prole-
tarian writing shall be treated as a broad term for
a whole class literature, .in the way
bourgeois
is used
as a broad term for a class literature.
6. Whereas proletarian literature does not seek to
delimit the scope of art but to extend its boundaries,
opening new areas of experience to the writer-
Be it resolved that conceptions of the narrowing
influence of communism on writing shall be at least
thoroughly aired before being accepted.
7· Whereas proletarian literature is not something
new springing out of the heavens, but a continuation
of past literature, just as Marxism is a continuation
of past culture-
Be it resolved that all future discussions of prole-
tarian writing shall recognize that it is not a nega-
tion of past literature but its legitimate heir.
8. Whereas critics continue to maintain that Marxist
literary criticism is a sociology, and whereas it is not
a sociology but a literary criticism-
Be it resolved that henceforth it shall be con-
sidered a literary criticism with the full tasks of in-
terpretation and evaluation.
The above is fearfully submitted, with the hope
that it will provoke a sufficient number of amend-
ments and substitute motions to dispose of these
issues once and for all.
But even if a final draft is approved, the work of
the individual critic will just be ready to begin. For
it is, of course, in practice, in the everyday tasks of
explaining and evaluating specific literary pieces,
problems and tendencies, that the writer will prove
the right of Marxism to be literary criticism and his
right to be a Marxian critic. Unfortunately, many of
the recognized Marxian critics-Hicks,
in particu-
lar-have failed so far to fulfill these aims. Maybe
if they didn't have to stop to answer elementary
questions every time a new writer or reader enters
the battlefield, but could take these questions for
granted, they could really apply themselves to the
critical work that has to be done.
13
