“Every artist, everyone who considers themselves an artist, has the right to create freely according to his ideal, independently of everything. However, we are Communists and we must not stand with folded hands and let chaos develop as it pleases.” -Lenin

In a recent TED lecture Sheena Iyengar discussed some preconceptions people have in making choices. One of the principle questions is whether more choices are necessarily better, which she believes to be be a common idea for Americans. It is interesting that Americans identified several choices when shown several varieties of soda, whereas Russians nearly across the board said there was only one choice: soda. There is a problem in terms of the framing of the question of choice, which once shifted significantly questions some seemingly common sense based ideas.

I think when we talk in general about what “freedom” means in the United States, there are some tacit assumptions about what we are referring to. Freedom is aligned with “agency”, or ones ability to decide on their actions based on their own volition without external coercion. This definition of freedom which I align with liberalism begins to fall apart nearly immediately when we scratch the surface. The choices we make are always influenced by our historical experience, our relationship to law, and what we desire or aim toward in our actions is influenced in the extreme by our cultural circumstances. There is a coded language of universal and abstract “will” behind the discourse of freedom which ignores history, circumstance, conditioning, and especially the way the discourse of freedom itself is framed. I have argued else-where about the absurdity of the “pure realm” of art—  it is imperative that we see the same to be true of freedom.

In Marcuse’s essay on liberal tolerance, he does an excellent job of explaining why “free speech” in a general sense can actually be detrimental to freedom considered socially. We are living in circumstances of hierarchical power structures to such an extent that an equal playing field would actually entail the necessity of silencing and coercing some people who have power in a given situation. The argument that racist voices should be given equal rights as voices advocating for the dismantling of racist systems must necessarily ignore the structural racism at play. The problem of framing is involved, as the two sides are seen as isolated entities rather then two forces being swept along by an already existing tide of public opinion, international domination of people of colour, a prison-industrial complex that is disproportionately filled with poc people, and brutal anti-immigration tactics.  Any idea of “freedom” that doesn’t factor in the general direction on a wider social level is going to be a severely impoverished account.

Lenin’s quote with which I opened this discussion seems to be a sort of “have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too-ism”, where the artist is able to produce with complete impunity, but also needs to consider their role and position in the class struggle. I think rather that these two sides are congruent in a way that is difficult to grasp for people (like myself) fostered in a society that is structured monadically. “Social responsibility” is an increasingly unpopular topic, and most people would defend themselves in the interest of freedom against their social responsibility, whether it be as an artist, or chemist. If we re-frame the way we look at morality on terms of issues like class, I think we get a more holistic image of social well-being that actually renders the conditions for the possibility of a meaningful freedom.

Hegel offers an interesting and provocative definition of freedom that I think it would be wise for us to consider socially. Freedom is a relationship to un-freedom, in other words, freedom itself only exists as left does to right, rather than as an abstract category of individual volition. This definition by necessity points us toward taking a wider scope in our definition of morality, and also locates it in concrete instances of oppression. What I think needs to be added to this understanding to make it complete, is an approach which seeks to account for systemic instances of non-freedom, rather than simply saying “that’s the way it is”, ascribing it to some trans-historical definition of human nature. One of Marxism’s great intellectual achievements was the realization that freedom means something extremely more complicated than “doing what one wants”, and positing that true freedom is a dialectic interplay between the desire and responsibility to the society in which it plays out. I am interested in the radical non-subject oriented perspective this brings up, which non-the-less understands that there is no objective standpoint to critique from, nor a properly speaking “social whole” that can act as an object of critique. The dialectic process is a method of illuminating social relationships and adjusting based on the interplay of various perspectives.

This idea is especially important when we talk more specifically about what the stakes are for achieving freedom, and what the role of the Communist in trying to develop them is. In Benjamin’s essay on The Role of the Artist as Producer we are given one of the best descriptions of communisms role in the arts. Rather than the focus on the individual genius, issues like class antagonism actually bar the possibilities for the creative outlet of proletarian people. When Steve Jobs died there was a strong outpour of voices defending his genius, and ability to understand and program devices people wanted. No one asked the question: How many brilliant people were never given the chance to develop their ability because they were working in a sweatshop producing these devices? The fantasy of the genius who through sheer talent and ability is able to become rich seems almost absurd when we consider the conditions of the proletarian forces who are coerced into signing statements that they won’t commit suicide or their family will face financial consequences.

Reframing freedom as a task for communists would more accurately be described as “refracting” freedom, a balancing that considers the point where it interacts, and alters its course through this interaction.
-M