From Theory to Tragedy: Rereading Benjamin’s “Aestheticization of Politics” and “Politicization of Art” in Hindsight

AI generated image

  

“Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves… The logical outcome of Fascism is an aestheticizing of political life. Communism responds by politicizing art.” Walter Benjamin

Introduction

In the closing lines of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1935), Walter Benjamin delivers his most cited political opposition: “The logical outcome of Fascism is an aestheticizing of political life. Communism responds by politicizing art” (Benjamin, 1969, p. 242). For Benjamin, fascism’s strategy was to mesmerize the masses through spectacle while preserving existing property relations; communism’s alternative was to redirect artistic production toward political struggle. Brilliant as this opposition appeared in its own day, hindsight forces us to ask: was Benjamin’s faith in communism justified, or was it tragically naïve?

The 1935 Context

Benjamin wrote under the immediate shadow of Mussolini and Hitler. Fascist regimes denied genuine political rights while staging grandiose parades, cult rituals, and cinematic spectacles. As he put it, fascism “sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves” (Benjamin, 1969, p. 241). Politics became theater, a choreography of submission, most famously exemplified by the films of Leni Riefenstahl.

Against this, Benjamin proposed that communism should politicize art. He imagined photography, film, and newsreel not as instruments of ritual but as tools for raising consciousness. Soviet montage cinema seemed to exemplify this emancipatory use of technology, designed to shatter bourgeois illusions and mobilize workers for collective transformation. At this moment, communism still retained an aura of revolutionary promise for many European intellectuals.

Language, Context, and Shifting Meaning

To interpret Benjamin accurately, his terminology must be understood in its synchronic state. As Saussure (1916/1983) explained, the value of a sign depends on its place within a specific linguistic system. In 1935, “fascism” denoted Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany; “communism” referred to Marxist-Leninist revolution and its Soviet manifestation. Today, however, these terms have evolved. “Fascism” is used more broadly to describe authoritarian, ultra-nationalist regimes; “communism” has become inseparable from the historical record of Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and other authoritarian devastations. Reading Benjamin synchronically thus clarifies his intent, but diachronic hindsight reveals how far his categories have shifted.

Hindsight and Historical Tragedy

Benjamin was right about fascism: its entire politics was indeed aestheticized, from choreographed rallies to the glorification of war. But the other side of his opposition collapses under historical evidence. While he imagined communism would politicize art to liberate the masses, communist regimes often politicized art to enslave them. Stalin’s USSR imposed Socialist Realism, transforming art into propaganda, glorifying the leader, rewriting history, and silencing dissenting voices. Mao’s China mobilized art during the Cultural Revolution as a weapon of indoctrination. Across the 20th century, communist states not only suppressed artistic freedom but also presided over mass killings—estimates often cite close to one hundred million victims worldwide.

The bitter irony is that Benjamin’s emancipatory vision of politicized art was realized, but only in its most sinister form. Instead of empowering the proletariat, art became a tool of authoritarian control. His formula remains theoretically elegant but was brutally contradicted by history.

Reinterpreting Benjamin Today

What, then, is the value of Benjamin’s opposition? One answer is to detach it from the specific historical actors of the 1930s and reinterpret it structurally. Instead of fascism versus communism, we might think in terms of authoritarian aestheticization versus critical politicization. The former describes any regime that turns politics into spectacle, whether fascist or not. The latter could still mean art that intervenes in social struggles, critiques neoliberalism, or mobilizes collective action — but crucially, without falling into state propaganda.

In this sense, Benjamin’s insight remains relevant. His categories continue to illuminate the tension between art as mystification and art as critique, even if the historical communism he once trusted became a vehicle for terror.

Conclusion

Benjamin’s 1935 essay remains prophetic in diagnosing the fascist strategy of turning politics into theater. Yet his confidence in communism’s ability to politicize art was tragically misplaced. From our vantage point, his formula is both brilliant and incomplete: it offers a conceptual tool while reminding us how historical realities can betray theoretical hopes. Today, the challenge is to reclaim the politicization of art for emancipatory purposes, while never forgetting how easily it can be perverted into an instrument of domination.

References

Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans., pp. 217–251). Schocken Books.

Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)

Eagleton, T. (2008). Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism. Verso.