M.F. Kalfat mf at kalfat.net
In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled "Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with this: Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’ (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had truck with fascism. Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant literature. [emphasis added] Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society? Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical purposes, let's stick to modern literature. -- محمد فتحي كلفت Mahammad Fathy Kalfat ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: It would seem that "genuinely revolutionary" art might be hard to purvey very widely in capitalist society. You know the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes and all that. Anyway Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht ? The Jungle - Upton Sinclair ? _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
