/lit/ - Literature

>>10712356
While you're making a large number of assumptions that I'm sure we'll never agree on, I think that I understand your overall point. You are absolutely correct that leftists, and marxists especially, see all art as an administrative question. (This was historically true even of some more extreme rightwingers, but not much anymore).

The proof of this is quite simple. Open any of the popular "liberal" (i.e., cultural marxist) newsblogs, and you'll see that the only times they address art are to discuss their pseudo-sociological theories about its social effects. This is why they are so pathologically obsessed with "representation" of ethnic minorities, etc. They truly believe (due to their religion, cultural marxism) that if art does not serve what they conceive to be the cause, then it must be denigrated. The explicitly reject the notion of apolitical art, or of purely aesthetic values.

So they are forced by their own dialectic to relegate the matter to the administration. The precise same thing happened in the Soviets, for only slightly different reasons (instead of "white males", capitalist imperialists). The methods and results, however, are more or less indistinguishable.