Meaning: The quote, "My personal view is that such total planning by the state is an absolute good and not simply a relative good... I do not myself think of the attitude I take as deriving from Marx - though this undoubtedly will be suggested - but from Fichte and Hegel," is attributed to John Grierson, a pioneering figure in the field of documentary film and a proponent of state intervention in the arts and media. This statement reflects Grierson's belief in the positive role of government-led planning and regulation in shaping cultural and artistic production. To fully understand the context and implications of this quote, it is essential to delve into the historical, philosophical, and political backdrop against which Grierson's views emerged.

John Grierson was a prominent figure in the development of documentary film as a distinct genre and a tool for social change. He is often associated with the concept of "creative treatment of actuality," emphasizing the potential of documentary filmmaking to engage with real-world issues and contribute to the public discourse. Grierson's advocacy for state intervention in cultural and media spheres was rooted in his broader vision of utilizing the arts for the betterment of society, particularly in the context of the economic and social challenges of the early 20th century.

The notion of "total planning by the state" espoused by Grierson reflects a belief in centralized control and coordination of cultural and artistic endeavors. This perspective aligns with the broader ideological currents of the time, marked by debates surrounding the role of the state in economic planning and social welfare. Grierson's assertion that such planning is "an absolute good" suggests a firm conviction in the inherent benefits of government intervention, positioning it as a fundamental and unquestionable positive force.

In distancing his viewpoint from Marx while invoking Fichte and Hegel, Grierson highlights the philosophical underpinnings of his stance on state planning. Karl Marx, a seminal figure in the development of socialist and communist thought, is often associated with critiques of capitalism and calls for revolutionary change. By explicitly disassociating himself from Marx, Grierson seeks to situate his perspective within a different intellectual lineage. Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, both influential German philosophers, are known for their contributions to idealist philosophy and the development of concepts such as the organic unity of the state and the ethical significance of collective action.

Grierson's reference to Fichte and Hegel suggests an intellectual grounding for his advocacy of state planning rooted in idealist philosophy. Fichte's emphasis on the role of the state in realizing the ethical life of its citizens and Hegel's dialectical approach to the development of human history and institutions provide a philosophical framework for understanding Grierson's perspective. By drawing on these philosophical influences, Grierson seeks to present his position as part of a broader tradition of thought that extends beyond the more explicitly political and economic analyses associated with Marx.

The quote attributed to John Grierson encapsulates his belief in the unequivocal value of state planning in shaping cultural and artistic production. It reflects the broader historical context of debates surrounding state intervention, the role of the arts in society, and the intellectual currents of idealist philosophy. Grierson's views continue to provoke discussions about the relationship between government, creativity, and the public good, highlighting the enduring relevance of his ideas in contemporary discourse on cultural policy and artistic expression.

In conclusion, John Grierson's advocacy for "total planning by the state" as an "absolute good" reflects his belief in the positive impact of government intervention in cultural and artistic spheres. By invoking the influence of Fichte and Hegel while distancing himself from Marx, Grierson situates his perspective within a broader philosophical and intellectual framework. His views continue to spark discussions about the role of the state in shaping cultural production and the ethical dimensions of government intervention in the arts.