Talk:Marxist aesthetics

=bad source=

poetry magic is one of the sources/references for Marxist aesthetics?

The following is from poetrymagic and shows how biased and unfavorable of an explanation this random website has:

There are more fundamental problems. Literature is broad and richly diversified: Marxism is not. How can the second encompass the first? Of course if Marxism were a scientific theory, a small number of laws would serve to explain a wide range of effects. But Marxism is not a scientific theory. Deductions from its generalizations have been spectacularly inaccurate. The rise in living standards of capitalist working class; revolution in Russia of all places; the Russian-Chinese conflict; the repression under Lenin, Stalin and all Soviet leaders to Gorbachev himself, the uprisings in Berlin, Budapest, and Prague. Marxist theory "explained" all these events, but only by cooking up suspect subsidiary hypotheses. If Marxism fails intellectually, do not its aesthetics fall to the ground? Similarly, where supported by them, is not Marxist aesthetics open to the objections levelled at Structuralism and Lacanian theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Significant Reference
Art and Society Essays in Marxist Aesthetics by Adolfo Sanchez Vazquez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)