I. Introduction
Much has been made of the potential for political and revolutionary
significance held by various forms of artistic expression. However, I
fear that there is a notable absence of revolutionary perspective given
towards the specific medium of television.[1] This is not a negation of
the political significance of television in general; the dominant
bourgeois society has made firm usage of the medium in the propagation
of their ideas. There are countless hours of the medium dedicated to
bourgeois perceptions of society, and still countless hours of the
medium that could be considered--- in some vein--- progressive. However,
as with all things, we must approach television in a systematic and
meaningful fashion.
There are many points that may be considered in deriving a correct
understanding of how we revolutionaries should approach the medium of
television and how we should conduct our own activities with respect to
the creation of television. The core points that we are concerned with
here are (1) the core "seed," "theme," or "message" of a given programme
and the class stamp of that theme; (2) the necessity of creativity[2]
in the art of television, and (3) the mass character of television as a
means of propagating revolutionary ideas. Now, we must say here that the
simple propagation of progressive ideals is certainly not a replacement
for engaging with the masses through struggle. It is but another tool in
the tool-chest of the revolutionary and the people's revolutionary Party.
We must certainly not abandon the tasks of winning the masses through
struggle. This is incontestable! But we must thoroughly utilize all
tools available to us including through the arts in general and the art
of television in particular. With all of this being said, let us
carefully examine the art of television and advance the cause of
bringing about a strong, harmonious, and unified style for the most
beautiful medium of artistic expression
II. A Character Across Time
The most notable distinguishing feature of the television arts from a
standard motion-picture is a quantitative one. It is simply a matter of
runtime. The average cinematic work runs in the neighborhood of two
hours or so; whereas, even a single season of television can contain
between eight and sixteen hours of combined runtime. Furthermore, this
runtime is split across a number of episodes that themselves must be
both self-contained and simultaneously further the series' ultimate
narrative.
This may seem obvious, but in this rough sketch of the distinctions
between television and film, we can already see crucial principles of
dialectics at play. All quantity contains quality, and in the
quantitative increase in runtime, there exists a qualitative distinction
between two hours of film and eight-to-sixteen hours of television. The
nature of the thing fundamentally changes and a qualitatively new form
of artistic expression is created. This new thing, the medium of
television, contains elements of the motion picture that preceded, but
still emerges as a fundamentally different medium--- or a different
stage of medium--- that is governed by a different stage of
principles.
The second dialectical principle that must be noted with respect to
television is the relationship between the general and the particular.
Mao says in On Contradiction that, "These are the two processes of
cognition: one, from the particular to the general, and the other, from
the general to the particular. Thus cognition always moves in cycles."
Television, as a mode of creative expression and thus the
materialization of cognition, also moves through these cycles. Each
episode moves from the particular to the general--- from the specific
narrative of a given episode to the wider narrative of the series--- and
from the general to the particular. Moving from the general to the
particular in the sense of returning the wider narrative back to the
specific episode and showcasing--- in the best of circumstances--- how
the movements of the wider narrative affect the particular situations of
an episode
These dialectical principles are of paramount importance when crafting a
unified body of thought surrounding the medium of television. And with
these principles firmly established, we must make note of a more
particular structure of television--- or any literary-creative work for
that matter. In his landmark treatise, On the Art of Cinema, the
great Comrade, Kim Jong Il said, "If a writer is to produce a good piece
of work, he must first select the right seed, which is the core of a
literary work."[3] This seed, is effectively the theme or "core
idea" of that is meant to be propagated en masse through the work.
And just as television itself is a qualitatively different medium from
cinema, the seed of a work of television must be qualitatively
different from that of a work of cinema. More specifically, the seed of
a work of television must hold the productive tension of simultaneously
being general enough to be rigorously applied throughout each episode,
and particular enough so as to distinguish the series from others--- it
must be novel.
The question remains, however, of the place from which these seeds
originate. The idealist would posit that they originate from a
pre-social knowledge of a singular artist. This would be incorrect for
reasons that we (and others) have articulated at length, so we shan't
dwell on it here. The dogmatist would answer similarly that these
artistic seeds are (or at least should be) developed only through
the most rigorous and highest levels of ideology. This is also incorrect
and fails to apply analysis of any artist's conditions onto his work.
The ultimate source of these seeds is found in the ultimate source of
cognition itself. In man's conditions and direct lived experiences. As
the great Comrade, Kim Jong Il, noted himself:
"If a writer is to create a fine work, he must first gather valuable
material about life. This material serves as the life-giving soil which
nurtures the seed as it grows and matures into an artistic image."[4]
There is also a basis for this in the great, Comrade Mao Zedong's On
Practice:
"If you want to know the structure and properties of the atom, you
must make physical and chemical experiments to change the state of the
atom. [...] All genuine knowledge originates in direct
experience."[5]
If we are to take it--- as we should--- that artistic expression is a
physical-material manifestation of cognition, then it certainly must
follow that the genuine knowledge that precedes the work itself must
follow the same principle. It must certainly follow that the ideas
propagated in the creative work must originate in genuine experience of
the matter. It must also follow that for the creation of good
television, one must also participate in the act of experiencing life,
for if he is to accurately and genuinely represent such matters on
screen, then he must have a multi-ordered knowledge of the subject.
We stated previously that a television programme is a qualitatively new
thing with respect to the preceding medium of cinema. It is with this in
mind, that we must tailor our definition of the seed to fit the new
medium. We have accurately described the seed in its general aspect for
literary-artistic work, and now must describe it accurately for the
particular aspect of the television programme. We had briefly approached
this topic, but let us elucidate it more clearly.
In the medium of television, an artist has a greater time-span with
which to develop the core of the seed. This also means that the seed may
be more complex or flexible with respect to those of cinematic works.
While the seed itself will remain mostly constant in its general aspect
(over the series), it may also ebb and flow like the tides in its
particular aspect (between episodes or story-arcs). Taken in the
broadest possible sense, the seed of a particular programme manifests as
how the central character(s) manifests their creativity. It centrally
answers the question of how these characters act within their capacity
as social being to transform the world and themselves. How they choose
to do so--- and the portrayal of the success or failure of these
efforts--- is the seed of a programme in its purest form.
The challenge in crafting a good programme is in the obeying of the most
immortal artistic maxim:--- show, don't tell. Regardless of the
superficial message of any given televisual work--- what the show
tells--- they key to crafting a good and correct programme is found
in the manner by which the core characters transform the world and
themselves throughout the series. Television uniquely provides an extend
period of time with which the audience may sit with a character and
watch them enact their creativity. We will return to this concept
throughout our meditation on televisual art, so it must be kept in mind
that the ultimate goal is to produce a theory of television that
outlines how the medium may be utilized in the promotion of progressive
acts of creativity.
III. The Art of Writing & The Mass Line
Television, like all artistic works, is frequently and erroneously
viewed as the work of a singular great genius. We find this to be an
incorrect view, for no television series can be produced--- nay! No
television series could even be written--- without the labor of numerous
individuals. It could be said in this sense and with the knowledge that
the life experience of the writer(s) provides the basis of the seed that
the narratives of a given programme are the particular experiences of
the writers' lives, generalized into an overall narrative structure, and
return to the particular through their translation into a specific
narrative--- both on the level of the programme itself and of an
individual episode.
It could be said that the writers' room is (or should be) the mass
line operating on a miniature scale. The experiences of the writers and
wider society are generalized into narrative themes that make up the
general aspect of the programme's seed. They are synthesized into to
the core message and returned to the particular premise of the
programme.
It is with this in mind that we must make note of the class standing of
any given work of televisual art. The great Comrade, Mao Zedong, has
said that "every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with
the brand of a class." Given that we have noted that televisual art is a
materialization of cognition--- a "kind of thinking" in a sense--- it
follows that television programmes will take on the ideological
orientation and class-standing of those who produce them and the society
in which they live.
In the development of a popularly oriented programme, exceptional care
must be taken to orient it towards a working-class stand. This is,
however, much easier to simple state than to demonstrate. The question
remains of what a working-class oriented television programme looks
like materially.
The first answer to this question lay in the fact that, just as in
political organizing, the class stand cannot be achieved from a simple
voyeuristic observation of the class from the perspective of another
class. A working-class oriented programme must originate in the genuine
experiences of the working-class. The writers' room must fully,
consciously, and with the most steadfast resolve, oriented itself
towards and immerse itself in the working-class if it is to achieve
working-class oriented artwork. At the on-the-ground level, this means
that the writers' room cannot be divorced from the class by virtue of
their own technical standing but must surround itself with the general
life and activities of the working-class. They must dine at the
restaurants, experience the neighborhoods, and understand the interests
of the working-class to such a degree that they become indistinguishable
from their own interests.
The second answer to this question lay in the ideological character of a
good programme and in the consciousness of this ideological character.
The writers' room must be conscious of the ideology that they are tasked
with broadcasting on screen. Just as in political organizing, the
merging of correct theory and correct practice is paramount in the
creation of a strong programme. We cannot aimlessly stumble our way into
correct ideas, we must firmly synthesize these ideas from the
working-class standing outlined above and fuse them with the science of
materialist dialectics to produce the ideological content of a
programme.
The third answer to this question involves the structure of the writers'
room itself--- an important domain where ideological struggle and
collaboration are held in a productive tension. In the production and
development of a television programme, there must be a firm struggle
against petit-bourgeois ideals and other such backwardness; however,
there must also be a great collaboration between all of the writers. In
the best case, there is unity on the general aspect of the programme,
struggle on its particulars, that is then returned to unity in action.
While we will not approach liberal notions that there are "no bad
ideas," each writer does bring a unique experience that may contribute
progressive elements to a programme. Ultimately however, unity must
prevail, and democratic decisions should be carried out to the fullest
extent of one's capacities just as they would be in the Party.
Overall, the writers' room, while different in numerous ways, still
functions similarly to a mass organization in a way. The medium of
television presents a broad range of opportunities to propagate ideas to
the great masses of the people, and as such it is of paramount
importance that revolutionary television writers make a concentrated
effort to understand and act upon the principles of television as a
simultaneous mode of propaganda, outlet of artistic and creative
expression, and collaborative cycle of unity and struggle the product of
which is the programme itself. Like society, we cannot seek to change
methods in the production of televisual work if we do not firmly
understand them and apply revolutionary principles to their domain.
IV. The Depiction of Ordinary & Working Life
There is a most beautiful and often underappreciated aspect of the
televisual arts that is of paramount importance to the reorientation of
the medium towards a proletarian stand. It is the depiction and
exaltation most high of the ordinary and working lives of the great
masses of the people. Labor, life, and the everyday construction of
society from the interpersonal through the broad political spheres
should be a point of pride for the working-class and as such is greatly
deserving of depiction on screen. Under the dominant bourgeois society,
there are several erroneous views that are frequently pursued through
all medium--- including the televisual medium. Let us combat these and
then let us firmly articulate the position that television depicting the
lives, experiences, and struggles of the working class should represent.
Firstly, there is the miserabilist view that poverty--- or any
working-class standing at all--- such a catastrophic misery in and of
itself that other classes (or strata of class) may comfortably revel in
gratitude that they are not in such positions. There are a few points of
incorrectness here. The primary error is a metaphysical one that we, as
a society, and that the working-class are not interconnected and
interdependent human beings. It is paramount to denying man's character
as a social being itself. The seed propagated by these programs is
that we are essentially disparate creatures only loosely interacting
with each other rather than interconnected masses. It is individualism
and backwardness of the highest form and must be combatted if we are to
have good, correct, and revolutionary television.
Secondly there is an error of glamorizing or aspirationalizing certain
struggles or the presentation of a "perfect" life from within struggle.
This, too, is erroneous because it (in certain circumstances) can lead
to an excess of escapism and pacification among the masses. While a
certain degree of escapism can be normal, healthy, or even necessary so
as to avoid "burn-out" or depression, we cannot fall into a mode of
exclusive or nigh-exclusive reliance on escapism. In art, just as in
life, the only method moving through and overcoming hardship is through
struggle. As the great Comrade Mao Zedong said, revolution is not a
dinner-party nor are even the everyday struggles of working-class life.
The accurate depiction of struggle serves multiple purposes in the realm
of revolutionary television. It characterizes struggle as not simply
empty hardship, but the engine of change itself. And when these
struggles are depicted through multiple lenses, through the viewpoints
of multiple characters, we can characterize all struggles, from the
revolutionary to the personal, as social processes through which change
emerges. And when one contradiction is rectified in a given story arch,
more emerge as the general aspect of the narrative takes precedence.
Such is the old principle that "one divides into two."
So having correctly identified two erroneous trends in televisual arts,
we must articulate the correct path for the medium. Put simply, this
path is the natural result of the "mass-line writers' room" that we have
previously identified. However fantastical the premises of a given
programme, the seed of the work must synthesize the general
experiences of life--- not the miserabilist voyeurism nor aspirational
glamorization but a material depiction of life that contains both the
finite and the infinite in productive tension with one another.
Programmes can have fantastical premises. This is natural, and human
minds will wander, but the seed of good television is and must be
grounded in the experiences, struggles, and lives of the working class.
They must be taken from their particular situations, synthesized
generally into the seed of a programme, and then returned to the
particular domain of a given narrative. Ultimately, we cannot portray
the working-class from outside the class and we cannot pretend as if
there are no struggles to be found within the class. We must accurately
demonstrate that within all domains there is struggle, but also that
struggle creates synthesis. We must demonstrate that it is this process
that all that has created everything that has ever been made.
V. Television as a Revolutionary Instrument
It goes without saying that there is no medium which alone is able to
make revolution; however, it is equally true that media and artists
themselves do, in fact, contain great revolutionary significance when
combined with more material forms of struggle. In the appendix to
"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin stresses that
"[Revolutionaries] must learn how to master every sphere of work and
activity without exception." It is incontestable that the televisual
arts are such a sphere. While not the prinicipal mode of struggle, the
arts and sciences--- the manifestations of man's creativity--- are
unquestionably one such sphere that we must come to master. It is in
this sense that we may say that television has the capacity to become a
revolutionary instrument. If the seed of a televisual work is the
actions and creative capacities of the characters taken in their general
aspect, and it is our goal as revolutionaries to master "all spheres,"
then it naturally follows that we must master the creation of programmes
the seeds of which would take an undeniable proletarian stand.
The question, however, still remains of what exactly such a programme
would look like, and how it could be used to influence the broad masses
of the people and bring them to the great cause of socialism. Overall,
revolutionary television has three central purposes. Firstly, it must---
in its seed--- propagate core revolutionary principles and showcase them
through continuous struggle. Secondly, it must present the glory,
beauty, and universality of labor. And thirdly, it must demonstrate the
engine of change: the great masses of the people and their struggle for
independence--- for the ability to forge a better life and to shape
their destiny. Television alone cnanot bring people intro struggle, but
it can provide fertile ground for revolutionaries to advance them
through continuous struggle and action. It is better to recruit someone
who as already been "opened-up" to progressive ideas; is it not?
Let us address the first matter--- that of a progrssive seed. We said
that a truly revolutionary programme must, at its most core and basest
level, propagate our core revolutionary principles. This means not that
they will be simply spoken past the viewer as another detail that they
may brush aside; it means that our theories and practical tactics for
transforming the world must be so thoroughly ingrained in the programme
that it would be rendered incomprehensible without them. Even when
flawed, characters should demonstrate a correct and accurate progression
as demonstrated by the laws of materialist history. Of course, the laws
and concepts of materialist dialectics must be properly applied for the
particular narrative and time-scales of the programme, but they must
still be applied. Furthermore, the prinicples and partical matters of
transforming the world must be deomnstrated through the characters'
actions rather than their speech and mere "beliefs" alne. Taken
generally, a good programme should take great care to demonstrate htat
in all shapes, across all time-scales, the work of building revolution
and transforming the world, oneself, one's community, or any other
domain are analogous applications of the same fundamental laws of
development.
The second point with regards to the purpose of revolutionary television
has been previously discussed, but it is worth briefly revisiting here.
It is of paramount importance that the televisual arts--- and indeed all
arts--- demonstrate the beauty, universality, and
revolutionary-transformative potential of labor. We must firmly
demonstrate through both what we depict and how we depict it that labor
and proletarianism are not things to be hidden, neglected, or ashamed
of. It is something to carry with great pride, for it si through labor
that everything that humankind has made of this world is able to be
constructed. And moreover, there is more to the concept of "labor"
than simple "work" or production for a wage. The very concept of
defining oneself is a laborious process. The process of
self-actualization is a laborious process. And if we may be
meta-referrential, artistic construction--- of television or anything
else--- is a laborious process. If we are to genuinely represent life,
then it would be a great error to neglect the depiction of labor.
A revolutionary depiction of labor need not rely on setting alone,
however. In actuality, it means that we must depict every process, on
every level from the personal to the worldly, through the lens of the
laborious construction of something new. "Randomness" and "fate"
need not be present in revolutionary programming--- except to be
combatted. It must be firmly shown through every available avenue that
all that has been constructed has done so through labor.
This leads us quite well into the third point. We must demonstrate that
contradictions and the relations between people--- that man's collective
desire for independence is the engine by which the world changes. I
would posit that many prorgrammes make the error of Act of God-ism.
While understandable given that we haven't endless screentime for
exposition, it is possible to breach into the realm of the erroneous
nonetheless. Act of God-ism would posit that sometimes things happen
without rhyme, reason, law, nor history to explain them. If we truly
seek to create revolutionary television, we surely cannot be
broadcasting the notion that there is any sphere that is not subject to
change, nor could we broadcast the notion that conflict simply appears
out of thin air. At every narrative level, it must be demonstrated that
conflict brews over time as a result of the socio-historical conditions
present within a given context. It must also be demonstrated that just
as conflict does not fall from the heavens, neither do solutions. The
deus ex machina trope is the paragon of Act of God-ism. The
solutions to conflict should not simply "appear" or magically dawn on
the characters through epiphany. They must be struggled for and derived
through the struggles and experience through which each character has
gone. In showing that each character achieves victory through practice,
it is shown--- piece by piece and episode by episode--- that not only do
the characters of a given programme posses the ability to change their
circumstances through disciplined struggle, but so does the viewer.
Overall, it must be clearly communicated that there is no apex that the
great masses of the people cannot reach. And we communicate this by
crafting narratives that show our characters doing exactly that.
With the weaving together of these ideas, it becomes possible for us to,
as Lenin said, master the sphere of the televisual arts. Taken
generally, the crafting of revolutionary television must demonstrate to
its viewers that there is a method to the madness of common life, that
nothing happens in a vacuum, and that everyday ordinary people, when
united, can fundamentally alter the course of their own lives and the
world at large. It must be shown--- even on a miniscule scale--- that
problems are solvable, that people can solve them, and that every
level of labor is not only worthy of on-screen depiction, but
fundamental in all human activities.
VI. Final Thoughts & Conclusions
Having established a few core tenants of television as a revolutionary
medium, we must return our discussion to the general aspect. And it is
worth noting that these principles of a revolutionary television are not
discrete mechanical steps. They are interlocking features of a medium
that could prove incredibly beneficial to revolutionaries seeking to
engage the broad masses of the people. Put simply, a programme cannot
have a truly progressive seed if it's production consists entirely of
bourgeois relations. A seed that truly demonstrates the creative and
transformative potential of the working masses must originate from the
working masses themselves. A mass-line writers' room is a
prerequisite for the construction of revolutionary-progressive
television. Before a single line of dialogue is spoken, before a single
letter is printed on a page, the writers must first experience man's
creative capacity for themselves. It is through the practice of
transforming the world that the seed of the programme will come forth,
and once the seed has been crystallized, the narrative will swiftly
follow.
It is through this process that the programme will attain its
class-standing and mass character. So with this, the question still
remains: "What do we when we refer to a 'strong, harmonious, and
unified style' of television?" We certainly do not mean that all
programmes should be the same or dogmatically preach our ideas past the
viewers. A strong, harmonious, and unified style--- in our telling---
refers to a programme that demonstrate the transformative capacities of
mankind, regardless of the specific narrative. We refer to a style that
demonstrates the beauty and universality of ordinary working-life
through the actions and practices of our characters. And above all, we
refer to a programme that can communicate--- on whatever scale--- that
the working masses of the people are the engine of history. This unified
style is that which may, even for a brief moment, "touch" the viewer
and slowly, quantitatively open them up to the idea that they, too can
change the world.
Now with all of this being said, it would be rather foolish to proclaim
that television, or any artistic work, alone could bring about
transformative change in the world. The world is not changed through the
passive consumption of art; it is changed through an active and
laborious struggle by the great masses of the people. Television is not
a "solution" to the problems and tasks of contemporary society so much
as it is another tool in our toolchest--- another "sphere" which we
must master. Any genuinely progressive television would be wasted if it
were not utilized in conjunction with active mass-based political
struggle. We cannot outright dismiss secondary tools, but we must use
them to augment political work rather than outright replacing it.
As a concluding note, it would be a grave error to neglect the personal
element present in our meditation on the televisual arts. Put simply,
television has long been my personal favorite medium of artistic
expression. It is truly my love for this medium that prompted an
extended meditation on its constrcution. I genuinely believe that even
beyond its potential for revolutionary agitation, television as a medium
presents an opportunity to connect with and relate to fictional
characters and narratives that is hitherto unparalleled. It is for that
reason that such narratives and characters accurately represent not only
the people by whom they were created, but the people who will watch them
as well. As always, our practice must be guided "from the masses, to
the masses," and when the task of constructing revolutionary
television comes along, the masses will no longer be a passive subject,
they will broadcast as the rightful agents of history.
:::
- Note: When we refer to "television," we are referring to
episodic, serialized, motion-pictures irrespective of whether or not
it is broadcast through traditional, cable, digital streaming, the
internet, or any other means. We are referring to fiction here. ↩︎ - In both the artistic and Juche-inflected sense of the world ↩︎
- Kim Jong Il. On the Art of the Cinema. Pyongyang: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1973. Accessed July 18, 2026. ↩︎ - Kim Jong Il. On the Art of the Cinema. Pyongyang: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1973. Accessed July 18, 2026. ↩︎ - Mao Zedong. On Practice from Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1937.
Accessed July 18, 2026. Marxists Internet Archive. ↩︎
