The Workers Dreadnought

In my last post on Iannis Xenakis I wrote,

the city of Toronto should continue to spend tax payer dollars on subsidizing the TSO’s activities and should in fact increase their support to reduce the need for corporate sponsorship. I do not agree with those on the Left who would argue that classical music was not, is not and cannot be working class music, and think that the increasing level of alienation that some sections of the working class feels towards classical music has partly been due to the deliberate production of class differences within the sphere of cultural production through the dismantling of rigorous arts education in public schools, the pricing of tickets because of corporate sponsorship and lack of government patronage etc, but this is a topic for another post.

I would like to pursue this topic and discuss it more thoroughly and why I think that a revolutionary politics should be interested in contemporary avant-garde classical music,  although of course this is not a final word on any of these matters. I would like to start by agreeing that there indeed exists a snobbishness that often pervades Euro-American classical, contemporary or otherwise, music audiences and venues in North America (I will not repeat this term again in this post but I would like my audience to note that all of my comments are simply supposed to reflect generalized trends applicable only to North America as I am sure that other places in the world have very different relations to Euro-American classical music and their own national classical musics and am not familiar with these relationships). Also, I agree that any distinction between “high” and “low” culture is unnecessary and elitist, although I think that we need to still distinguish between “art” and “entertainment” (more on this later, but for now I would like to make it clear that “art” and “entertainment” do not simply map onto “high” and “low” culture and are thus not synonyms). Furthermore, it is not controversial to argue that classical music audiences tend to be older and more affluent people. Additionally, concerts do tend to be predominately white, although a large section of the audience are also racialized. However, I do not think that this means that classical music can be simply dismissed as being the music of “dead white rich men”. I offer one last prefatory comment in which I would like to remind my audience that many notable works of classical music have entered into general musical circulation such as Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons”, Pachelberl’s “Canon in D Major” (American seniors probably best know it as the “graduation song”), and a wide variety of other compositions by Beethoven, Mozart etc. This cross-genre influence has continued into the 20th and 21st century with famous directors like Stanley Kubrick using compositions by Ligeti, Bartok and Penderecki in their films. People may not know the names of either the composer or the composition, but are more than happy and capable to hum a few bars.

It has become commonplace by many in the culture industry to establish a firm boundary between “high” and “low” culture, and “art” and “entertainment”. Furthermore, all of these terms are heavily loaded as “high” culture and “art” have become synonymous with one another and signify to potential audiences that what is forthcoming will likely be boring, dull and upper-class (economic category), whereas “low” culture and “entertainment” is fun, exciting and “working class” (economic category). I would like to suggest that there is little necessarily in common between “high” culture and “art”, and “low” culture and “entertainment”. Indeed, music like hip-hop can easily straddle both categories, “art” and “entertainment” (and in the hands of rappers like 2Pac able to effectively bridge the divide between “art” and “entertainment”, a binary that is by no means stable) regardless of its supposed categorization as “low” culture, as can classical music (how can we forget Bartok’s use of themes from popular folk melodies in his own compositions. It is indeed interesting how the distinction between “art” and “entertainment” is not sustained in most layperson discussions of classical music and there exists the basic assumption that classical music and “art” themselves were synonymous terms, and that there did not exist classical music that is simply entertaining and would not be considered art, which of course is not true).

Now I know that there may be some who bristle at the argument that classical music is also working class music from both left-wing and right-wing perspectives. Those on the right try to use the reified notions of “high” culture as a means by which to disparage any working class influence or input into classical music and would likely argue that the working classes need to emerge from their gutters and understand classical music if to better themselves (a typical Fabian argument) or that the working classes simply were incapable of understanding/interpreting working class muci. Whereas, the left-wing argument either pivots on a similar distancing of classical music from working class culture (a way by which to allow for the insidious valorization of “entertainment” as being the entirety of working class culture, which is in fact a great disservice to the working classes as it attempts to hide and disown their own historical accomplishments. Indeed, I would suggest such leftists are actually in fact doing the work of the ruling classes by reifying certain elitist stereotypes of the working class and its capacity for “mental” labor) or argue that classical music may have been working class, but no longer remains so. I do not wish to provide little historical biographies of composers throughout the ages who have been from the working classes, nor do I want to provide historical statistics of the attendance of the working classes at concert halls for classical music as both are not controversial facts and can be easily verified by a cursory wikipedia search. Rather, I wish to address the second aspect of the leftist argument that classical music may have been working class culture in the past, but since the 20th century has ceased to be working class music.

It cannot be denied that the working classes have slowly ceased to be the large sections of classical music audiences. This has to do in part with changes in tastes, which itself is the result of a changing social formations (including as I mentioned earlier the active dismantling of rigorous arts education in public schools due to smaller school budgets which thus robs children a system of reference by which to enjoy classical music unless their parents provide it for them, many of whom have similarly been stripped of such an education) and the time and attention one has to listen to a given piece (this of course has to do with the relationship between the pressures of the working day and the need to fill ‘downtime’ with mindless ‘entertainment’), but also due to the elitism that has pervaded classical music in the 20th century. Greater experimentation to the form and content of classical music itself has engendered an elitism, especially due to the fact that for many the system of reference has been destroyed for most due to a sub-par arts education curriculum thus rendering any such experimentation completely alien (it must be noted that large sections of the ruling classes, who engage in much of the snobbery, themselves have attacked these developments and have decried contemporary classical music as not “music” and would prefer to simply listen to romantic music till the end of time). The most famous case of course has been the alienation caused by atonal, twelve-tone, aleatory etc. music, although again one cannot but deny the crossover, for example the influence of Steve Reich’s minimalist compositions on popular post-rock band Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Furthermore, we must ask whether simply being experimental and avant-garde (which is simply the French phrase for vanguard – something that all Leftists, consciously or unconsciously, are trying to build) is anti-working class, or is it like Marxism, something that has been maligned, misunderstood etc and that requires a rebuilding of “capacity” in the working class and a rebuilding of the working class itself (both in their own systems of reference, but also the reconstruction of a working class life that gives one time to actually listen to 15 minute movements etc. In the last few years the “slow food” movement has tried to do something similar with food production and consumption). I answer a loud and resounding “NO!” to the first question, and “YES!” to the latter. We must remember that the role of any revolutionary project is to break down the division between “mental” and “manual” labor and thus, the working classes must be allowed the opportunities to actually engage in “mental” labor. The conventional Marxist argument has been that the “mental” labor of the working classes must be in the factories, so workers should be allowed greater input in the production process, however, I think that the working classes should also be given the capacity and time to “mentally” labor over art itself and that includes contemporary classical music. Does that mean that the working classes have to love aleatory contemporary classical music? No. But the reason for their dislike cannot, and should not, simply be that they have been told by the ruling classes that this music is not for them and that they should leave such art criticism to some stuffy old man with a PhD.

In the last few months I have become increasingly interested in contemporary classical music (largely from the 20th century like Webern, Schoemberg, Ligeti, Reich, Bussotti etc) and have been attending fantastic concerts at The Music Gallery in Toronto. I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the conservative selections, largely consisting of romanticism, that the TSO puts on (I have been attending the TSO for several years). Don’t get me wrong, Beethoven and co. are still brilliant composers and the music that they wrote s hauntingly beautiful, and one should definitely attend and patronize the TSO (indeed, the city of Toronto should continue to spend tax payer dollars on subsidizing the TSO’s activities and should in fact increase their support to reduce the need for corporate sponsorship. I do not agree with those on the Left who would argue that classical music was not, is not and cannot be working class music, and think that the increasing level of alienation that some sections of the working class feels towards classical music has partly been due to the deliberate production of class differences within the sphere of cultural production through the dismantling of rigorous arts education in public schools, the pricing of tickets because of corporate sponsorship and lack of government patronage etc, but this is a topic for another post). However, like anything else, there have to be new developments in music compositions, performance etc. and we cannot simply remain stuck in the romantic period. Indeed, no one wants to listen to power ballads for the rest of their lives, and most of us welcomed the grunge movement as a healthy antidote to the excesses of “glamour rock”. I have been very reluctant to talk about music, art/film and fiction on this blog, despite the amount of all three that I consume, due to a real feeling of unease to write about something that I am not well-versed in, and am thus trying to broaden my horizons as these are aspects of my life that I do feel are as important to me as politics (and often impact my politics, and vice versa).

So as I have been blindly stumbling through the brand (brave?) new world of contemporary classical music I have come across a very interesting composer, Iannis Xenakis (much of what I am going to write next is based on the wikipedia entry that I have linked to and I do apologize if I get my communist Greek National Resistance history wrong and would appreciate it if anyone could please add or correct me). Xenakis is an interesting figure, not simply because of his training in architecture (which he then applied to music), and his interest in “formalized music”, but also because of his involvement in the Greek communist anti-fascist guerrilla struggle against the Axis occupation of Greece (I do not know my Gr. Xenakis joined the communist-led National Liberation Front. He was first involved in organizing and participation in mass rallies and demonstrations, and then later joined the armed resistance itself (the armed resistance was called the Greek People’s Liberation Army or ELAS). Following the defeat of the Axis, the British government attempted to restore the Greek monarchy but was opposed by the communist-led Democratic Army of Greece (Xenakis by then was a member of the left-wing Lord Byron faction of the ELAS). It was whilst battling against the British that Xenakis lost his eye. He was also attending the National Technical University of Athens and in 1947 graduated with a degree in civil engineering. Also, in 1947 because of the Conservative backlash against the communist guerrillas, which included killing them or sending them to concentration camps, Xenakis fearing for his life fled the country, and went to Paris. It was in Paris where Xenakis was trained as an architect and composer, despite his status as an undocumented immigrant into the country, and quickly came to be recognized as one of Europe’s most important composers in artistic circles due to his application of mathematics and architectural concepts to his compositions. In the late 1970′s and early 1980′s Xenakis even designed a computer system, UPIC, that allowed him to compose electronic music using a variety of different technical methodologies.

There are two aspects of the on-going line struggle in Nepal that I wish to briefly discuss today, 1) the recent reports of faction meetings and 2) the ANNISU(R) president, Himal Sharma’s, statement regarding the education of the children of party leaders. In the last few days there have been widespread reports that there have been numerous faction meetings around Kathmandu and other cities where UCPN(Maoist) leaders have been meeting party cadre and discussing the two-line struggle within the party and consolidating support for their respective faction and its policies. It is of unclear as to the exact content of these conversations and what implications they may have on the on-going two line struggle, however, it is unsurprising that such meetings are occurring and does not necessarily foreshadow any major changes in the immediate future. But it is evidence that the line-struggle is becoming increasingly intense within the party. The situation of the party may seem to be completely disheartening, however, there is something very interesting that is simultaneously occurring, an active internal debate that is demonstrative of an active political life within the party (I am of course thinking of Gramsci’s differentiation between ‘bureaucratic centralism’ and ‘democratic centralism’). In 1919, the CPSU, after having captured State power in the October Revolution was tired and weary from its ongoing civil war was also racked by factional struggle. Indeed, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all agreed that the factional struggle in the party had become so bad that it had become necessary to ban all factions within the party and reassert “democratic centralism” as to ensure that the party did not split (ironically one of the factions banned was also called “Democratic Centralism” – I must admit that I think that this banning factions was one of the biggest mistakes that was ever made by the CPSU and played a central role in the construction of a monolithic communist party). In the case of the Nepalese party, despite the fact that the factional struggle has racked the party there is no clear evidence of an evident split and ‘democratic centralism’ has been largely maintained. However, as we all know, there have been notable collapses in democratic centralism including the factionalization of the ANTUF(R) and the death threats against Baburam Bhattarai (indeed the fact that the culprit was simply suspended from the party for four months is laughable, as he should have been expelled from the party and turned over to the police).  

Furthermore, the president of the ANNISU(R), Himal Sharma, like his predecessors, has demanded that the UCPN(Maoist)’s leaders educate their children in public schools rather than in private schools. This demand is not new. However, what is surprising is that this remains an issue after this many years. Indeed, one of the first splits to occur in the party was when two leaders of the party, including Mani Thapa (leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party (Nepal), left the CC of the then CPN(M) citing the fact that the leadership had become accustomed to a petit-bourgeois lifestyle which included education their children to private schools in Nepal and abroad. This aspect of the line struggle is important as it speaks to some of the basic issues that resulted in the need for the GPCR in China in the 1960′s. Revolutionary China, despite the attempts to provide education to greather swathes of the masses, still saw a highly segregated education system in which the children of political (the children of Party cadre) and cultural elites  (the children of the educated petit bourgeoisie) were recruited to magnet schools that would ensure their place in the premier universities thus reproducing themselves as a bureaucratic class, whereas the children of the working class and peasantry were being educationally sidelined through limited access to secondary education. This of course resulted in the reproduction of basic class differences, albeit in altered form due to the abolition of private property and business within China, and thus necessitated the GPCR. The UCPN(M) leadership have often argued that having learned from the GPCR and its failures that they had developed a theory of ‘continuous cultural revolution’ however, it does not seem that this has been able to stamp out the problem of party leaders sending their children to private schools (indeed, in the model village of Thabang a private school has been opened in 2008 with the blessings of UCPN(M) leaders). Thus, whilst the party continues to struggle over the immediate political problems that it faces, far more difficult and long-term problems are steadily becoming entrenched.

Shrestha holds meeting with supporters

KATHMANDU, May 31: UCPN (Maoist) Vice-chairman Narayankaji Shrestha on Tuesday held a meeting of former Ekata Kendra Masal cadres in an apparent bid to increase the latter´s stake in the UCPN (M).

Shrestha was the leader of the Ekata Kendra Masaal which later merged into then CPN (M) shortly after the Constituent Assembly polls in 2008.

“The meeting was organized to consolidate our [former Ekata Kendra Masal] position in the party,” said a leader close to Shrestha.

The UCPN (Maoist) is embroiled in intra-party conflict between the three factions led by Chairman Dahal, Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya and Vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattrai. Shrestha is a key aide to Chairman Dahal.

Dahal, Baidya and Bhattarai factions have been organizing separate meetings in recent days.

Shrestha had organized a separate meeting of former Ekata Samaj during the Palungtar plenum in a bid to garner support for Chairman Dahal.

“The party is embroiled in intra-party conflict. The meeting focused on the management of the inter-party-struggle and the role we can play to resolve problems” said Shrestha talking to media persons after the meeting.

Shrestha said he also has differences with Chairman Dahal.

Around 250 supporters of Shrestha from the area, district and state committees of the party attended the meeting held at a party palace in Tinkune, Kathmandu.

‘Maoist brass must send children to public schools’

Tek Narayan Bhattarai

PALPA, May 31: UCPN (Maoist) student wing All Nepal National Independent Students Union-Revolutionary (ANNISU-R) Chairman Himal Sharma on Monday said that the children of UCPN (Maoist) leaders should discontinue educating their children in private schools.

“Some leaders are trying to enroll their kids in private schools on the pretext that this was being done for them by their relatives,” he said.

Speaking at an interaction organized by the Association of Revolutionary Journalists on Monday in Palpa, Sharma said contractors and the education mafia will be ready to enroll the children of the party´s leaders but that should not be allowed. Such children also should go to public schools like the children of ordinary people, he said.

“If they don´t oblige we will ask the party to take strong action against them,” he informed.

Sharma said that Moaist leaders will not be allowed to invest in private schools and colleges either and in case secret investments are made, they will expose them. He said their party has been discussing this issue as an agenda in itself. It was important that the Maoist party internalize this policy so that it would be easy to introduce and implement the same in other parties as well.

Sharma stressed that their student union will not let attempts to weaken public education and privatize it completely succeed. “If we follow Tribhuwan University´s educational calendar and strictly adhere to the dates for admissions, classes and examinations, it will be very easy to implement this plan,” he said.

Talking separately to Republica, Sharma said the student union had already submitted a memo to party Chairman Prachanda, who has promised to raise it as an agenda item at the party meeting.

Some leaders have already placed their children in public schools while those with children still in boarding schools are looking for suitable public schools, Sharma claimed.
“We can only exert moral pressure,” he added.

In a different context, Sharma said that the student union is acting like a ´super glue´ to prevent the parent party from splitting.

I did not originally intend on commenting on Baburam Bhattarai’s interview with the conservative Indian newspaper, The Business Standard, as the questions asked and answered were the standard fare and have been repeated in countless other publications. However, what I did find interesting was not the byline selected by the Business Standard for publication which stated that the Nepalese party did not regard the current CCP to be a Maoist party as that is the stated opinion of nearly all of the Maoist and Mao Zedong Thought left but rather, Baburam Bhattarai’s answer to the last question asked. ”In retrospect,” Jyoti Malhotra asks, “what are the mistakes you think you may have made?”. Bhattarai responds, “When we came to power, we should not have continued to act like an insurgent group. We could have suggested dialogue as a way to resolve issues, instead of making pronouncements from a public platform.” It is not news that Bhattarai has once again shown his moderate colours, Bhattarai has always been a far more “moderate” figure in communist politics or in the context of the on-going line struggle the leader of the “rightist” faction within the UCPN(Maoist). Indeed, the party has used his “moderate” politics as a way to woo the Nepalese petit-bourgeoisie which has become a vital component in their urban revolt due to the relatively small size of the industrial proletariat (largely employed in the textile industry and the construction industry) and the relatively large size of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, especially in Kathmandu.

What is interesting is that Baburam Bhattarai in this statement seems to have completely forgotten what the situation was like when the UCPN(Maoist) came into power those 5 years ago. It is true that the PLA had suffered losses in 2005 and was at a stalemate with the RNA due to the concentration of forces around urban centres and Indian military support, however, the UCPN(Maoist) also enjoyed dual power in the countryside and enjoyed popular support of the masses. In the wake of the 7-party alliance the people of Nepal in urban centres rose up against the monarchy and helped overthrow the monarchy and establish a Constitutional Assembly which has always been the goal of the communist movement. Indeed, it would have been unthinkable that in such a period of widespread political activity and insurgency on the part of the popular classes in the urban areas, something that has not been witnessed since, if the CPN(Maoist) had not been an insurgent party. I have always stated that I respected Baburam Bhattarai and understood that he simply had a pessimistic interpretation of the contemporary situation, however, I do not think that I fully appreciated how pessimistic he has become (or perhaps always was) about the 2005/2006 period. Indeed it seems that Baburam Bhattarai, like the CCP, “used to be ideologically driven, too.”

Q&A: Baburam Bhattarai, United Communist Party

We don’t look at the chinese as maoists’

Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi May 29, 2011, 0:49 IST

Jyoti Malhotra met Vice-Chairman of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Baburam Bhattarai in Kathmandu a few days ago, where he spoke frankly about India’s role in Nepal’s political crisis.

How do you look at the political situation in Nepal today?
In the Constituent Assembly elections held in April 2008, we made substantial gains. All the major political parties such as the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) realised they would have to ally with us. Unfortunately, after the elections, India became unhappy and it was very difficult for Delhi to accept our leadership. It took us four months to form the government.

Where does the problem lie?
The problem lies both with India and us. We were too ambitious… we thought we could do things on our own, while India underestimated our strength. This came to a head over the appointment of the army chief. We wanted to establish a civilian authority and so, we wanted former army chief Rookmangud Katuwal to resign. For two years, there was a deadlock in the completion of the peace process and writing of the Constitution.

So, what are the conclusions you have arrived at?
The conclusion is that we need the understanding of all the major political parties in Nepal such as the Nepali Congress and UML as well as New Delhi. We must abide by the 12-point understanding brokered by India in 2005.

What is your view of the Indian establishment?
We can’t change our neighbour. We have to depend upon India, both economically and geographically. There is now some tacit understanding within our party in this regard. We have reached a certain stage in the life of our movement… India helped broker the 12-point understanding between the Maoists and the erstwhile monarchy in Nepal, and, subsequently, was even supportive of the people’s wishes for a democratic and republican Nepal. This was seen during the ‘Jan Andolan’, or the people’s movement, in April 2006.

But in the last few years, there was a great deal of mistrust between the Maoists and Delhi?
Yes. When our government was forced to resign after only 10 months of being in power, we suspected undue interference from New Delhi.

And, now?
India is a regional power. It has its own responsibilities. We have tried to mend fences (with India). There has been substantial progress in recent months. All sides, including the Nepali Congress, should take responsibility for what has happened.

Who should take the most responsibility?
The onus is on us. We want to undertake fundamental changes in society and, therefore, we should take more responsibility. Accordingly, we have taken the initiative to start a dialogue with the political parties, have a national unity government and begin the process of integrating the Maoist combatants into a paramilitary force or the Nepali army.

What kind of state do you want Nepal to be in?
The Nepali Congress wants a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. We would like a federal state, keeping in mind the geo-political situation, as we are situated between two great powers, India and China, with substantial devolution of power to the provinces. However, along with federalism, we also want a presidential form of government. The problem was that in the post-conflict situation, we were the biggest party to have emerged in the elections, but this was abandoned in favour of a consensus.

Today, we still want a national unity government. We would like to extend the Constituent Assembly for another year. Even Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal, the leader of UML, wants this government to continue in a national unity government. It will be good if all the parties come together, especially the Nepali Congress and the Maoists.

What should be done with the peace process?
We are ready to abide by the 12-point agreement brokered by India. The integration of the Maoist combatants into the army as well as the writing of the Constitution, both of which are stalled, should take place simultaneously. There should be no time frame. Both are part of the peace process.

How do you want to integrate the Maoist combatants into the army?
There are several modalities of integration. The democratisation of the old, royalist army and the integration of the combatants into a new force, either paramilitary or into the army itself, must happen. Nepal faces a unique situation, we have to find unique solutions.

Where does India fit in?
We want to have good relations with India. There may be ideological differences, but we have to persevere. Look at the history: less than three years after India brokered the 12-point agreement, the political understanding broke down. It failed on three fronts — army integration, power-sharing and writing the Constitution.

After relations soured, India thought we were pro-Chinese. But we don’t look at the Chinese as Maoists. There is a fundamental difference between the Maoists and what the Chinese have become today. (Once upon a time), they used to be ideologically driven, too.

The reality is that we have to deal with India. However, as Nepal is a sovereign power, we would like to deal with both India and China. How can we be anti-India? We may be against some policies of Indian government such as small border disputes, but we want good relations with India.

Do you welcome Indian investment?
Yes, of course. And, we agree that the initiative should be taken by Nepal.

In retrospect, what are the mistakes you think you may have made?
When we came to power, we should not have continued to act like an insurgent group. We could have suggested dialogue as a way to resolve issues, instead of making pronouncements from a public platform.