The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-01-21
A Debate on the MARKHAM
Conception OF Literature

All literature reflects class
point of view, Gold continued
there exists no pure" literature
isolated from the needs, interests
and philosophy of a particular
class, and only when this class
point of view is the view of the
working class, can it be either OBJ
jective or in the interest of man
kind as a whole.
Gold showed how bourgeois lit
erary criticis-later in the course
of the debate Boyd was to do pre-
cisely what Gold said was habitual
with bourgeois CRITICS to do, and
which Boyd denied he would do
accept without question the prop
uganda in the works of leading
bourgeois writer's while they vehe-
mently denounce the propaganda
in the works of revolutionary writ
ers in the name of objectivity. Gold
pointed to Eliot as an example OF
q great bourgeois poet who was &C
cepted by bourgeois critics as one
of "the purest of the pure" artists
and yet whose work was filled with
open and implicit approval Of re-
dictionary politics and futilitarian-
ism in living, while these same crit
les denounced as ''propagandistS"
revolutionary writer's whose work
expresses the opposite of these
qualities revolutionary politics
and the hope and will for better
world.
Gold finished his argument by
launching an attack on the INTEL
lectuals in the service of the capt.
talist class who are paid enormous
sums to corrupt the outlook of their
readers, and who then ridicule
their audiences for their STU
pidity".
BOYD, suaye, condescending and
u visibly impressed by his resem-
bIance to a vastly more intelli-
gent Irishman Bernard Shaw, at
tempted a rebuttal by poo-poohing
Colds reference to Marx as $50
much religious worship" scarcely
more worthy of logical refutation
than the worship of Jehovah or
Buddha, and then went on to
prove, without being conscious of
it, the MARKHAM contention that
the leading bourgeois, critics are
either dolts incapable of being edu-
Gated or, charlatanS, or sometimes
both, and that they are always,
consciously or unconsciously, enc
mics of the working class.
Boyd knew all about Marx"
when Dresser, Dos Passos ct al were
intellectual infants, he confiden-
dentialy informed the audience,
and there was nothing to Marx
but lot of ''wearying and abomin-
: ably written dogma. Artists have
other things to do but listen to
"maniacs'' (referring to Mark,
Boyd vouchsafed, unwittingly cat
gorizing himself, and no true
artist" can ''be interested in the
troubles of anybody living at II
East 3rd St." tenement section)
although he might feel sorry for
him. It would be another matter
if the jewellers in penthouses on
Park Ave. were to have troubles,
especially troubles of adultery,
boyd had lanented on the "de-
cline in adultery in the last issue
of the American SPECTATOR, but
the description of these latter
troubles would constitute 'litera-
ture" whereas the description OF
the lives of the residents at IL East
Bird st. would be so much ''propa-
ganda".
Boyd denied that most bourgeois
writer's sell themselves in the in
terest of the capitalist class and
submitted as proof" handful of
writer's in Holland and Belgium
who remain true to their art.
THE remainder of Boyds argu-
/ ment consisted almost entirely
Of feeble WISE cracks frequently in
terpolated with the words Charm
ing" and pleasant" and by the
reiteration Of the statement that
art Is individual" and is created
in social and economic vacuum.
Boyd's parting shots-they hit no
one but himself-were that "revo-
lutionary writer's, too, sold them
selves for remuneration, and that
"Trotzky himself had denied the
possibility OF the creation Of prole-