Talk:Literature and Revolution

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Type of art advocated by Trotsky[edit]

'Strive to create its own proletarian art as many at the time thought.'

This is VERY problematic since it implies Trotsky advocated for the SAME KIND of art as say the socialist realist policies of Mao and Stalin. No, Trotsky agreed with Lenin that the old must be carried forward into the new i.e. socialist society does not totally abolish past forms of art which reflect ruling class interests and sensibilities but rather builds on and takes away the skills, techniques, etc developed in past forms of art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article says “… he went on to argue against the … conclusion that … the proletariat … should … strive to create its own proletarian art …”, it seems that it correctly presents the views you describe. But perhaps this misunderstanding suggests rephrasing it would be helpful. PJTraill (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dating disagrees with Russian site[edit]

I believe I see that our Russian site says that it was written 1907—1923 with additions in 1924, and was first published in 1923, as shewn in the image of the first page. This contradicts this site, which says it was written in 1924. Could someone in the know please correct the errors? PJTraill (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]