Shahalam Tariq
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it.”
Karl Marx
Introduction: The Materialist Tendency
If there is anything which, Marx and Engels have consistently clung on to, in their intellectual as well as political lives, it is the emphasis of action over mere intellectual contemplation. Theory assumes the voice of one who gives a call to action. Marx shows a clear disregard for idealism, mainly because idealism assumes the primacy of ideas as the source of conflict, and thus proposes a solution based on that presumption. While critiquing the Young Hegelians, Marx writes that “Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men…it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness.” [1]. Thus, Marx and Engels go further to develop a criticism of Hegelian tendencies in German thought and idealist tendencies in the intellectual realm overall. Marx proposes an analysis based rather on “the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity” [1]. All of this analysis, to sum up, says only one thing that what must occur is “an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary…” [1].
Thus, what this materialist tendency in Marxist thought suggests, is not only a criticism of the idealist’s intellectual leanings .i.e. his analysis, but more so the fact that such an analysis blurs the vision, halts the flow of thought, which must go from contemplation towards action, and ends it within itself, forever chasing its own tail, like the Ouroboros. And this tendency is what has given birth to a dearth of Marxist texts and art, aimed at critiquing hidden idealistic and chauvinistic pitfalls in the revolutionary movements, from Lenin [2] to Fanon [3] and beyond this has remained a major theme in leftist literature and art.
Another point worth noting, which goes hand in hand with the aspect of practicality is the emphasis on revolution as being a collective act. On being asked about the scope of the proletarian revolution Engels says that “By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.” And thus, “It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.” [4]. Hence revolution is a collective struggle and not an individual one.
The above analysis provides a fair ground to develop a Marxist theory for art and intellectual work, this is reflected in the words of the Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong. During a talk delivered at the Yenan Forum in 1942, Mao refers to the artists of the country and says that “The problem of audience, i.e., the people for whom our works of literature and art are produced…Since the audience for our literature and art consists of workers, peasants and soldiers and of their cadres, the problem arises of understanding them and knowing them well.” Thus an artist must be connected to the masses, if he is to produce art for them, and any work of art that claims to be Marxist, must address the masses. Similarly, Fanon talks of the native intellectual in a colonial context and says that the intellectual because of his ties to the colonialist subscribes to “the universal abstract” supposing that “the settler and the native may live together in peace in a new world.” [5], but this view is in sharp contrast to the native who, “from the moment that the colonial context disappears, has no longer any interest in remaining or in co-existing.” [5], the intellectual fails to see this because “he is permeated by colonialism and all its ways of thinking.” [5]. Showing a gap between the intellectual and the masses which must be overcome. Thus, one can conclude that these types of artists and intellectuals who have no organic relationship to the masses cannot properly take on the task of revolutionary intellectual and aesthetic work, let us call these men the alienated artists and intellectuals.
Godard’s La Chinoise
In his 1967 feature La Chinoise, the French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard tells the story of a few young Maoist activists. These characters, the activists, all of them are students, and majority of them have very in-depth knowledge of Marxist theory and arts, less than four minutes into the film, the students are shown racking up a whole shelf with Mao’s Little Red Book, furthermore the building within which the characters live in, has phrases from Marxist texts (either paraphrased or copied) painted on to walls, phrases such as “Liberalism deprives the revolution of solid organization and strict discipline”, thus the imagery and dialogue in the film constantly conveys the fact that at least to some considerable degree these students are well versed in theory.
The film lacks any script so to speak, for there is almost no plot, no progression except a sudden one near the end, although not following a strict plot and stitching together seemingly disconnected scenes is Godard’s Jazz inspired style of filmmaking, yet here, it is a bit more radical, as the film was made not from a proper script but rather “from a notebook or workbook containing sketches, key words, diagrams, and so on.” [6] and that is why the film seems to have no proper plot. But this choice is neither random nor simply aesthetic, made just for the sake of making a unique film, but, this greater focus on dialogue and an almost lack of attention to the plot could help one understand more deeply, what this film is trying to say to its audience. This emphasis on dialogue more than the other elements of a traditional script represents the lack of action found amongst many leftist student organizations. And this takes direct inspiration from Godard’s own life as “The film was inspired by people and events that Godard observed among students at the University of Nanterre – where he would drive his partner of the time, Anne Wiazemsky, to her classes.” [6]. Thus Godard is trying here, to tackle with the issue of student organizations failing to produce any political action. Another stylistic choice is the costume design, all the students are fashionable people, and counting their ability to discourse about high art and philosophy, implies that they have access to higher education. This is how Godard shows the bourgeois and petite-bourgeois class characteristics of his characters, highlighting the usual composition of such “radical” student organizations.
Yet, the lack of action in itself is not what Godard speaks of, there are a number of aesthetic choices made by him, which refer implicitly the phenomena of alienated intellectuals as discussed above. The students in the film are disconnected from the outside world. The choices Godard makes to show this are interesting. Nothing of this disconnection is explicitly said, but Godard makes a very conscious choice of filming the film exclusively (for the most part) in closed spaces. These closed spaces, confined to different rooms of a single building, help Godard depict the sense of alienation and isolation which he is trying to portray. Even in those rare instances when one of Godard’s characters do step out, there is rarely a moment of the unification of the students and workers, as, one of the characters return to the building covered in blood, and upon being asked what had happened to him, he reveals at the meeting of the Cultural Revolution he was attacked by a different faction of Communists, thus showing the lack of unity even between the student organizations themselves. In the end, eventually, this whole parade of dialogue, does find outlet in practice, something which was absent in the majority of the film the group plans to carry out an attack on an influential political figure, a plan with which, one of the group members disagrees and as a consequence, is kicked out. When this plan is to be executed, in place of the said target, an innocent person is accidently killed. And eventually, they all go their separate ways, believing that they have made some progress in their political struggle. Thus, Godard ends the film by showing an almost tragic failure on the part of the students, and their ignorance to acknowledge the failure. This ending, ends the almost constant absence of action or practice. But what Godard shows here is not that in actuality these students do finally act. The actual scenario is rather symbolic of these alienated intellectuals’ failure of understanding the material conditions of the masses. And thus, what Godard says is that, even if such a rare occurrence does happen, where action is produced by such armchair revolutionaries, it will always be in vain, for, even their action is alienated.
Thus, this ending establishes in full force, a criticism of the politics of leftist student organizations, remarks such as the ones Godard made are relevant in today’s political climate more than ever. For Godard revolution is no memorizing of some theoretical phrases, and their hollow reproduction in speech, rather, revolution is a whole process, where each and every step must be taken carefully, and everyone who calls themselves a revolutionary must always form an intimate bond with the workers and the masses.
Works Cited
[1] Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1968). The German Ideology (Vol. I). Progress Publishers.
[2] Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1932) The State and Revolution.
[3] Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, Chapter 3: “The Pitfalls of National Consciousness.” (1963)
[4] Friedrich, E. (1969). The Principles of Communism. In K. Marx, & E. Friedrich, Selected Works (P. Sweezy, Trans., Vol. 1, pp. 81-97). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
[5] Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. (C. Farrington, Trans.) New York: Grove Press.
[6] Martin, A. (2005). La Chinoise Review. Real Theatre.
