Abstract The construction of aesthetic culture, owing to its significance for the development of the human society, is inevitably consistent with the law of the unity of universality and diversity. Basically speaking, the construction of aesthetic culture in a society depends on the contradictory movement of the production mode of material goods, while following the development law of culture and the inevitable logic of aesthetics. Meanwhile, modes of production and life, cultural traditions, daily habits, structures of feelings and values vary widely from nation to nation. Only when aesthetic culture is based on local conditions, will it achieve its effectiveness and sustainable stability. In the contemporary society, cultural policy, especially literature and art policies, is a basic means of aesthetic culture construction. Social investigation is the key foundation on which the Marxist political Party forms its route, guideline and policy. On the basis of plenty of social investigation, Lenin and Mao Zedong obtained an accurate understanding of their respective national conditions and drew a set of blueprints of aesthetic culture, namely literature-and-art policies, suitable for their own countries. Lenin focused on the mode of production, investigated the social structure and cultural conditions of the Soviet Russia and ultimately formulated the literature-and-art policy of ″Inclusive Absorption″. Mao Zedong focused on field work, investigated China's social classes, especially the peasant class, and developed the literature-and-art policy of ″Destroying the Old, Establishing the New″. Faced with similar national conditions, Lenin and Mao Zedong made policies with a huge difference, which shed light on Chinese Socialist Construction. To start with, the construction of aesthetic culture, also called the literature-and-art policy, should follow the universal rule on the one hand, while it should highlight the local characteristics on the other hand. China needed to develop an aesthetic style with its own characteristics. The fact that New China grew out of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society and the Soviet Russia from an imperialist society is the key factor leading to different policies made by Lenin and Mao Zedong. Furthermore, it is significant to properly handle the dialectical relation between the legitimacy and the proper use of literary ideology when making literature-and-art policies. In the post-colonial context, the core focus of contemporary China is an accurate understanding and appropriate treatment of the nature of literary ideology. In this era featured with culture-economy integration, great importance needs to be attached to the emphasis on the legitimacy of literary ideology and its proper use. Finally, subjective perception has certain influence on objective investigation. Lenin and Mao Zedong, as pure Marxists, shared a similar worldview and methodology. However, there is nuance slight difference: Lenin emphasized the process of natural history while Mao Zedong proposed individual endeavors. The subtle differences in subjective perception led to their different attitudes towards similar findings and the formation of distinctive policies.
|