Post on 04-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
1/78
( , 51-59, 61-96, 123-173)
What is Orthodox Marxism?
The philosophers have only interpreted theworld in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it. Marx: Theses on Feuerbach
THIS question, simple as it is, has been the fous of muh disussion in
both proletarian and bour!eois irles. "ut amon! intelletuals it has
!radually beome fashionable to !reet any profession of faith in Marxism
with ironial disdain. #reat disunity has prevailed even in the $soialist%
amp as to what onstitutes the essene of Marxism, and whih theses it is
$permissible% to ritiise and even re&et without forfeitin! the ri!ht to the
title of $Marxist%. In onsequene it ame to be thou!ht inreasin!ly
$unsientifi% to ma'e sholasti exe!eses of old texts with a quasi(
"iblial status, instead of fosterin! an $impartial% study of the $fats%.
These texts, it was ar!ued, had lon! been $superseded% by modern
ritiism and they should no lon!er be re!arded as the sole fount of truth.
If the question were really to be formulated in terms of suh a rude
antithesis it would deserve at best a pityin! smile. "ut in fat it is not )and
never has been* quite so strai!htforward. +et us assume for the sa'e of
ar!ument that reent researh had disproved one and for all every one of
Marx%s individual theses. ven if this were to be proved, every serious
$orthodox% Marxist would still be able to aept all suh modern findin!s
without reservation and hene dismiss all of Marx%s theses in toto -
without havin! to renoune his orthodoxy for a sin!le moment. rthodox
Marxism, therefore, does not imply the unritial aeptane of the results
of Marx%s investi!ations. It is not the $belief% in this or that thesis, nor the
exe!esis of a $sared% boo'. n the ontrary, orthodoxy refers exlusively
to !ethod It is the sientifi onvition that dialetial materialism is the
road to truth and that its methods an be developed, expanded and
deepened only alon! the lines laid down by its founders. It is the
onvition, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or $improve% it have led
and must lead to over(simplifiation, triviality and eletiism.
1
/
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
2/78
Materialist dialeti is a revolutionary dialeti. This definition is so
important and alto!ether so ruial for an understandin! of its nature that
if the problem is to be approahed in the ri!ht way this must be fully
!rasped before we venture upon a disussion of the dialetial method
itself. The issue turns on the question of theory and pratie. 0nd this not
merely in the sense !iven it by Marx when he says in his first ritique of
He!el that 1theory beomes a material fore when it !rips the
masses.2 [1]ven more to the point is the need to disover those features
and definitions both of the theory and the ways of !rippin! the masses
whih onvert the theory, the dialetial method, into a vehile of
revolution. 3e must extrat the pratial essene of the theory from the
method and its relation to its ob&et. If this is not done that $!rippin! the
masses% ould well turn out to be a will o% the wisp. It mi!ht turn out thatthe masses were in the !rip of quite different fores, that they were in
pursuit of quite different ends. In that event, there would be no neessary
onnetion between the theory and their ativity, it would be a form that
enables the masses to beome onsious of their soially neessary or
fortuitous ations, without ensurin! a !enuine and neessary bond
between onsiousness and ation.
In the same essay [2]Marx learly defined the onditions in whih a
relation between theory and pratie beomes possible. 1It is not enou!hthat thou!ht should see' to realise itself; reality must also strive towards
thou!ht.2 r, as he expresses it in an earlier wor':[3]1It will then be
realised that the world has lon! sine possessed somethin! in the form of
a dream whih it need only ta'e possession of onsiously, in order to
possess it in reality.2 nly when onsiousness stands in suh a relation to
reality an theory and pratie be united. "ut for this to happen the
emer!ene of onsiousness must beome the decisi"e step whih the
historial proess must ta'e towards its proper end )an end onstituted by
the wills of men, but neither dependent on human whim, nor the produt
of human invention*. The historial funtion of theory is to ma'e this step
a pratial possibility. nly when a historial situation has arisen in whih
a lass must understand soiety if it is to assert itself; only when the fat
that a lass understands itself means that it understands soiety as a whole
and when, in onsequene, the lass beomes both the sub&et and the
4
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#1http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#2http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#3http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#3http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#1http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#2http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#38/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
3/78
ob&et of 'nowled!e; in short, only when these onditions are all satisfied
will the unity of theory and pratie, the preondition of the revolutionary
funtion of the theory, beome possible.
Suh a situation has in fat arisen with the entry of the proletariat intohistory. 13hen the proletariat prolaims the dissolution of the existin!
soial order,2 Marx delares, 1it does no more than dislose the seret of
its own existene, for it is the effetive dissolution of that order.2 [4]The
lin's between the theory that affirms this and the revolution are not &ust
arbitrary, nor are they partiularly tortuous or open to misunderstandin!.
n the ontrary, the theory is essentially the intelletual expression of the
revolutionary proess itself. In it every sta!e of the proess beomes fixed
so that it may be !eneralised, ommuniated, utilised and developed.
"eause the theory does nothin! but arrest and ma'e onsious eah
neessary step, it beomes at the same time the neessary premise of the
followin! one.
To be lear about the funtion of theory is also to understand its own
basis, i.e. dialetial method. This point is absolutely ruial, and beause
it has been overloo'ed muh onfusion has been introdued into
disussions of dialetis. n!els% ar!uments in the#nti$
%&hring deisively influened the later life of the theory. However were!ard them, whether we !rant them lassial status or whether we
ritiise them, deem them to be inomplete or even flawed, we must still
a!ree that this aspet is nowhere treated in them. That is to say, he
ontrasts the ways in whih onepts are formed in dialetis as opposed
to $metaphysis%; he stresses the fat that in dialetis the definite
ontours of onepts )and the ob&ets they represent* are dissolved.
5ialetis, he ar!ues, is a ontinuous proess of transition from one
definition into the other. In onsequene a one(sided and ri!id ausality
must be replaed by interation. "ut he does not even mention the most
vital interation, namely the dia'ectica' re'ation beteensubect and
obect in the historica' process, let alone !ive it the prominene it
deserves. 6et without this fator dialetis eases to be revolutionary,
despite attempts )illusory in the last analysis* to retain $fluid% onepts.
7or it implies a failure to reo!nise that in all metaphysis the ob&et
8
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#4http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#48/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
4/78
remains untouhed and unaltered so that thou!ht remains ontemplative
and fails to beome pratial; while for the dialetial method the entral
problem is to change rea'it*
If this entral funtion of the theory is disre!arded, the virtues offormin! $fluid% onepts beome alto!ether problemati: a purely
$sientifi% matter. The theory mi!ht then be aepted or re&eted in
aordane with the prevailin! state of siene without any modifiation
at all to one%s basi attitudes, to the question of whether or not reality an
be han!ed. Indeed, as the so(alled Mahists amon! Marx%s supporters
have demonstrated it even reinfores the view that reality with its
$obediene to laws , in the sense used by bour!eois, ontemplative
materialism and the lassial eonomis with whih it is so losely bound
up, is impenetrable, fatalisti and immutable. That Mahism an also !ive
birth to an equally bour!eois voluntarism does not ontradit this.
7atalism and voluntarism are only mutually ontraditory to an
undialetial and unhistorial mind. In the dialetial view of history they
prove to be neessarily omplementary opposites, intelletual reflexes
learly expressin! the anta!onisms of apitalist soiety and the
intratability of its problems when oneived in its own terms.
7or this reason all attempts to deepen the dialetial method with theaid of $ritiism% inevitably lead to a more superfiial view. 7or $ritiism%
always starts with &ust this separation between method and reality,
between thou!ht and bein!. 0nd it is &ust this separation that it holds to be
an improvement deservin! of every praise for its introdution of true
sientifi ri!our into the rude, unritial materialism of the Marxian
method. f ourse, no one denies the ri!ht of $ritiism% to do this. "ut if
it does so we must insist that it will be movin! ounter to the essential
spirit of dialetis.
The statements of Marx and n!els on this point ould hardly be more
expliit. 15ialetis thereby redued itself to the siene of the !eneral
laws of motion - both in the external world and in the thou!ht of man -
two sets of laws whih are idential insubstance+ )n!els*. [5]Marx
formulated it even more preisely. 1In the study of eonomi ate!ories,
9
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#5http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#5http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#58/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
5/78
as in the ase of every historial and soial siene, it must be borne in
mind that ... the categories are thereore but or!s o being, conditions o
e-istence .2[6]If this meanin! of dialetial method is obsured,
dialetis must inevitably be!in to loo' li'e a superfluous additive, a mere
ornament of Marxist $soiolo!y% or $eonomis%. ven worse, it will
appear as an obstale to the $sober%, $impartial% study of the $fats%, as an
empty onstrut in whose name Marxism does violene to the fats.
This ob&etion to dialetial method has been voied most learly and
o!ently by "ernstein, than's in part to a $freedom from bias% unlouded
by any philosophial 'nowled!e. However, the very real politial and
eonomi onlusions he dedues from this desire to liberate method from
the $dialetial snares% of He!elianism, show learly where this ourse
leads. They show that it is preisely the dialeti that must be removed if
one wishes to found a thorou!h(!oin! opportunisti theory, a theory of
$evolution% without revolution and of $natural development% into
Soialism without any onflit.
2
3e are now faed with the question of the methodolo!ial impliations of
these so(alled fats that are idolised throu!hout the whole of evisionistliterature. To what extent may we loo' to them to provide !uide(lines for
the ations of the revolutionary proletariat It !oes without sayin! that all
'nowled!e starts from the fats. The only question is: whih of the data of
life are relevant to 'nowled!e and in the ontext of whih method
The blin'ered empiriist will of ourse deny that fats an only beome
fats within the framewor' of a system - whih will vary with the
'nowled!e desired. He believes that every piee of data from eonomi
life, every statisti, every raw event already onstitutes an important fat.In so doin! he for!ets that however simple an enumeration of $fats% may
be, however la'in! in ommentary, it already implies an $interpretation%.
0lready at this sta!e the fats have been omprehended by a theory, a
method; they have been wrenhed from their livin! ontext and fitted into
a theory.
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
6/78
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
7/78
out the tendenies impliit in the fats themselves and to promote this
ativity to the status of siene.
"y ontrast, in the teeth of all these isolated and isolatin! fats and
partial systems, dialetis insists on the onrete unity of the whole. 6etalthou!h it exposes these appearanes for the illusions they are - albeit
illusions neessarily en!endered by apitalism - in this $sientifi%
atmosphere it still !ives the impression of bein! an arbitrary onstrution.
The unsientifi nature of this seemin!ly so sientifi method onsists,
then, in its failure to see and ta'e aount of the historica'character of
the fats on whih it is based. This is the soure of more than one error
)onstantly overloo'ed by the pratitioners of the method* to whih
n!els has expliitly drawn attention. [8]The nature of this soure of error
is that statistis and the $exat% eonomi theory based upon them always
la! behind atual developments.
17or this reason, it is only too often neessary in urrent history, to
treat this, the most deisive fator, as onstant, and the eonomi
situation existin! at the be!innin! of the period onerned as !iven
and unalterable for the whole period, or else to ta'e notie of only
those han!es in the situation as arise out of the patently manifest
events themselves and are therefore, li'ewise, patently manifest.2
Thus we pereive that there is somethin! hi!hly problemati in the fat
that apitalist soiety is predisposed to harmonise with sientifi method,
to onstitute indeed the soial premises of its exatness. If the internal
struture of the $fats% of their interonnetions is essentially historial, if,
that is to say, they are au!ht up in a proess of ontinuous
transformation, then we may indeed question when the !reater sientifi
inauray ours. It is when I oneive of the $fats% as existin! in a form
and as sub&et to laws onernin! whih I have a methodolo!ial ertainty
)or at least probability* that they no lon!er apply to these fats r is it
when I onsiously ta'e this situation into aount, ast a ritial eye at
the $exatitude% attainable by suh a method and onentrate instead on
those points where this historica' aspet, this deisive fat of han!e
really manifests itself
>
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#8http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#88/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
8/78
The historial harater of the $fats% whih siene seems to have
!rasped with suh $purity% ma'es itself felt in an even more devastatin!
manner. 0s the produts of historial evolution they are involved in
ontinuous han!e. "ut in addition they are alsoprecise'* in their
obecti"e structure the products o a deinite historica'epoch, na!e'*
capita'is! Thus when $siene% maintains that the manner in whih data
immediately present themselves is an adequate foundation of sientifi
oneptualisation and that the atual form of these data is the appropriate
startin!(point for the formation of sientifi onepts, it thereby ta'es its
stand simply and do!matially on the basis of apitalist soiety. It
unritially aepts the nature of the ob&et as it is !iven and the laws of
that soiety as the unalterable foundation of $siene%.
In order to pro!ress from these $fats% to fats in the true meanin! of the
word it is neessary to pereive their historial onditionin! as suh and to
abandon the point of view that would see them as immediately !iven: they
must themselves be sub&eted to a historial and dialetial examination.
7or as Marx says:[9]
1The finished pattern of eonomi relations as seen on the surfae in
their real existene and onsequently in the ideas with whih the
a!ents and bearers of these relations see' to understand them, is very
different from, and indeed quite the reverse of and anta!onisti to theirinner. essential but onealed ore and the onepts orrespondin! to
it.2
If the fats are to be understood, this distintion between their real
existene and their inner ore must be !rasped learly and preisely. This
distintion is the first premise of a truly sientifi study whih in Marx%s
words, 1would be superfluous if the outward appearane of thin!s
oinided with their essene.2 [10]Thus we must detah the phenomena
from the form in whih they are immediately !iven and disover theintervenin! lin's whih onnet them to their ore, their essene. In so
doin!, we shall arrive at an understandin! of their apparent form and see it
as the form in whih the inner ore neessarily appears. It is neessary
beause of the historial harater of the fats, beause they have !rown
in the soil of apitalist soiety. This twofold harater, the simultaneous
?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#9http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#9http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#10http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#10http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#9http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#108/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
9/78
reo!nition and transendene of immediate appearanes is preisely the
dialetial nexus.
In this respet, superfiial readers imprisoned in the modes of thou!ht
reated by apitalism, experiened the !ravest diffiulties inomprehendin! the struture of thou!ht in .apita' 7or on the one hand,
Marx%s aount pushes the apitalist nature of all eonomi forms to their
furthest limits, he reates an intelletual milieu where they an exist in
their purest form by positin! a soiety $orrespondin! to the theory%, i.e.
apitalist throu!h and throu!h, onsistin! of none but apitalists and
proletarians. "ut onversely, no sooner does this strate!y produe results,
no sooner does this world of phenomena seem to be on the point of
rystallisin! out into theory than it dissolves into a mere illusion, a
distorted situation appears as in a distortin! mirror whih is, however,
1only the onsious expression of an. ima!inary movement.2
nly in this ontext whih sees the isolated fats of soial life as
aspets of the historial proess and inte!rates them in a tota'it*, an
'nowled!e of the fats hope to beome 'nowled!e of rea'it* This
'nowled!e starts from the simple )and to the apitalist world*, pure,
immediate, natural determinants desribed above. It pro!resses from them
to the 'nowled!e of the onrete totality, i.e. to the oneptualreprodution of reality. This onrete totality is by no means an
unmediated datum for thou!ht.
1The onrete is onrete,2 Marx says,[11]1beause it is a synthesis of
many partiular determinants, i.e. a unity of diverse elements.2
Idealism suumbs here to the delusion of onfusin! the intelletual
reprodution of reality with the atual struture of reality itself. 7or 1in
thou!ht, reality appears as the proess of synthesis, not as startin!(point,
but as outome, althou!h it is the real startin!(point and hene the
startin!(point for pereption and ideas.2
@onversely, the vul!ar materialists, even in the modern !uise donned
by "ernstein and others, do not !o beyond the reprodution of the
immediate, simple determinants of soial life. They ima!ine that they are
A
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#11http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#11http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#118/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
10/78
bein! quite extraordinarily $exat% when they simply ta'e over these
determinants without either analysin! them further or weldin! them into a
onrete totality. They ta'e the fats in abstrat isolation, explainin! them
only in terms of abstrat laws unrelated to the onrete totality. 0s Marx
observes:
1@rudeness and oneptual nullity onsist in the tendeny to for!e
arbitrary unmediated onnetions between thin!s that belon! to!ether
in an or!ani union.2[12]
The rudeness and oneptual nullity of suh thou!ht lies primarily in the
fat that it obsures the historial, transitory nature of apitalist soiety. Its
determinants ta'e on the appearane of timeless, eternal ate!ories valid
for all soial formations. This ould be seen at its rassest in the vul!ar
bour!eois eonomists, but the vul!ar Marxists soon followed in their
footsteps. The dialetial method was overthrown and with it the
methodolo!ial supremay of the totality over the individual aspets; the
parts were prevented from findin! their definition within the whole and,
instead, the whole was dismissed as unsientifi or else it de!enerated into
the mere $idea% or $sum% of the parts. 3ith the totality out of the way, the
fetishisti relations of the isolated parts appeared as a timeless law valid
for every human soiety.
Marx%s ditum: 1The relations of prodution of every soiety form a
whole2[13]is the methodolo!ial point of departure and the 'ey to
the historica' understandin! of soial relations. 0ll the isolated partial
ate!ories an be thou!ht of and treated - in isolation - as somethin! that
is always present in every soiety. )If it annot be found in a !iven soiety
this is put down to $hane% as the exeption that proves the rule.* "ut the
han!es to whih these individual aspets are sub&et !ive no lear and
unambi!uous piture of the real differenes in the various sta!es of the
evolution of soiety. These an really only be diserned in the ontext of
the total historial proess of their relation to soiety as a whole.
3
/B
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#12http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#12http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#13http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#13http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#12http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#138/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
11/78
This dialetial oneption of totality seems to have put a !reat distane
between itself and reality, it appears to onstrut reality very
$unsientifially%. "ut it is the only method apable of understandin! and
reproduin! reality. @onrete totality is, therefore, the ate!ory that
!overns reality. [14]The ri!htness of this view only emer!es with omplete
larity when we diret our attention to the real, material substratum of our
method, viC. apitalist soiety with its internal anta!onism between the
fores and the relations of prodution. The methodolo!y of the natural
sienes whih forms the methodolo!ial ideal of every fetishisti siene
and every 'ind of evisionism re&ets the idea of ontradition and
anta!onism in its sub&et matter. If, despite this, ontraditions do sprin!
up between partiular theories, this only proves that our 'nowled!e is as
yet imperfet. @ontraditions between theories show that these theorieshave reahed their natural limits; they must therefore be transformed and
subsumed under even wider theories in whih the ontraditions finally
disappear.
"ut we maintain that in the ase of soial reality these ontraditions
are not a si!n of the imperfet understandin! of soiety; on the ontrary,
they belon! to the nature o rea'it* itse' and tothe nature o
capita'is! 3hen the totality is 'nown they will not be transended
and cease to be ontraditions. Duite the reverse. they will be seen to beneessary ontraditions arisin! out of the anta!onisms of this system of
prodution. 3hen theory )as the 'nowled!e of the whole* opens up the
way to resolvin! these ontraditions it does so by revealin! the rea'
tendencies of soial evolution. 7or these are destined to effet a real
resolution of the ontraditions that have emer!ed in the ourse of history.
7rom this an!le we see that the onflit between the dialetial method
and that of $ritiism% )or vul!ar materialism, Mahism, et.* is a soial
problem. 3hen the ideal of sientifi 'nowled!e is applied to nature it
simply furthers the pro!ress of siene. "ut when it is applied to soiety it
turns out to be an ideolo!ial weapon of the bour!eoisie. 7or the latter it is
a matter of life and death to understand its own system of prodution in
terms of eternally valid ate!ories: it must thin' of apitalism as bein!
predestined to eternal survival by the eternal laws of nature and reason.
//
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#14http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#148/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
12/78
@onversely, ontraditions that annot be i!nored must be shown to be
purely surfae phenomena, unrelated to this mode of prodution.
The method of lassial eonomis was a produt of this ideolo!ial
need. "ut also its limitations as a siene are a onsequene of thestruture of apitalist reality and the anta!onisti harater of apitalist
prodution. 3hen, for example, a thin'er of iardo%s stature an deny
the 1neessity of expandin! the mar'et alon! with the expansion of
prodution and the !rowth of apital2, he does so )unonsiously of
ourse*, to avoid the neessity of admittin! that rises are inevitable. 7or
rises are the most stri'in! illustration of the anta!onisms in apitalist
prodution and it is evident that 1the bour!eois mode of prodution
implies a limitation to the free development of the fores of
prodution.2 [15]3hat was !ood faith in iardo beame a onsiously
misleadin! apolo!ia of bour!eois soiety in the writin!s of the vul!ar
eonomists. The vul!ar Marxists arrived at the same results by see'in!
either the thorou!h(!oin! elimination of dialetis from proletarian
siene, or at best its $ritial% refinement.
To !ive a !rotesque illustration, Max 0dler wished to ma'e a ritial
distintion between dialetis as method, as the movement of thou!ht on
the one hand and the dialetis of bein!, as metaphysis on the other. His$ritiism% ulminates in the sharp separation of dialetis from both and
he desribes it as a 1piee of positive siene2 whih 1is. what is hiefly
meant by tal' of real dialetis in Marxism.2 This dialeti mi!ht more
aptly be alled $anta!onism%, for it simply 1asserts that an opposition
exists between the self(interest of an individual and the soial forms in
whih he is onfined.2 [16]"y this stro'e the ob&etive eonomi
anta!onism as expressed in the c'ass strugg'e evaporates, leavin! only a
onflit between the indi"idua' and societ*. This means that neither the
emer!ene of internal problems, nor the ollapse of apitalist soiety, an
be seen to be neessary. The end(produt, whether he li'es it or not, is a
Eantian philosophy of history% Moreover, the struture of bour!eois
soiety is established as the universal form of soiety in !eneral. 7or the
entral problem Max 0dler ta'les, of the real 1dialetis or, better,
anta!onism2 is nothin! but one of the typial ideolo!ial forms of the
/4
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#15http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#16http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#15http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#168/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
13/78
apitalist soial order. "ut whether apitalism is rendered immortal on
eonomi or on ideolo!ial !rounds, whether with naive nonhalane, or
with ritial refinement is of little importane.
Thus with the re&etion or blurrin! of the dialetial method historybeomes un'nowable. This does not imply that a more or less exat
aount of partiular people or epohs annot be !iven without the aid of
dialetis. "ut it does put paid to attempts to understand history as a
uniied process )This an be seen in the soiolo!ially abstrat, historial
onstruts of the type of Spener and @omte whose inner ontraditions
have been onvinin!ly exposed by modern bour!eois historians, most
inisively by i'ert. "ut it also shows itself in the demand for a
$philosophy of history% whih then turns out to have a quite insrutable
relationship to historial reality.* The opposition between the desription
of an aspet of history and the desription of history as a unified proess is
not &ust a problem of sope, as in the distintion between partiular and
universal history. It is rather a onflit of method, of approah. 3hatever
the epoh or speial topi of study, the question of a unified approah to
the proess of history is inesapable. It is here that the ruial importane
of the dialetial view of totality reveals itself. 7or it is perfetly possible
for someone to desribe the essentials of an historial event and yet be in
the dar' about the real nature of that event and of its funtion in thehistorial totality, i.e. without understandin! it as part of a unified
historial proess.
0 typial example of this an be seen in Sismondi%s treatment of the
question of risis.[17]He understood the immanent tendenies in the
proesses of prodution and distribution. "ut ultimately he failed beause,
for all his inisive ritiism of apitalism, he remained imprisoned in
apitalist notions of the ob&etive and so neessarily thou!ht of prodution
and distribution as two independent proesses, 1not realisin! that the
relations of distribution are only the relations of produtionsub a'ia
species+ He thus suumbs to the same fate that overtoo' Froudhon%s
false dialetis; 1he onverts the various limbs of soiety into so many
independent soieties.2 [18]
/8
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#17http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#17http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#17http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#18http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#17http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#188/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
14/78
3e repeat: the ate!ory of totality does not redue its various elements
to an undifferentiated uniformity, to identity. The apparent independene
and autonomy whih they possess in the apitalist system of prodution is
an illusion only in so far as they are involved in a dynami dialetial
relationship with one another and an be thou!ht of as the dynami
dialetial aspets of an equally dynami and dialetial whole. 1The
result we arrive at,2 says Marx, 1is not that prodution, distribution,
exhan!e and onsumption are idential, but that they are all members of
one totality, different aspets of a unit. . . . Thus a definite form of
prodution determines definite forms of onsumption, distribution and
exhan!e as well asdeinite re'ations beteenthese dierent e'e!ents....
0 mutual interation ta'es plae between these various elements. This is
the ase with every or!ani body.2
[19]
"ut even the ate!ory of interationrequires inspetion. If by interation we mean &ust the reiproal ausal
impat of two otherwise unhan!eable ob&ets on eah other, we shall not
have ome an inh nearer to an understandin! of soiety. This is the ase
with the vul!ar materialists with their one(way ausal sequenes )or the
Mahists with their funtional relations*. 0fter all, there is e.!. an
interation when a stationary billiard ball is stru' by a movin! one: the
first one moves, the seond one is defleted from its ori!inal path. The
interation we have in mind must be more than the interation
of otherise unchanging obects It must !o further in its relation to the
whole: for this relation determines the ob&etive form of every ob&et of
o!nition. very substantial han!e that is of onern to 'nowled!e
manifests itself as a han!e in relation to the whole and throu!h this as a
han!e in the form of ob&etivity itself. [20]Marx has formulated this idea
in ountless plaes. I shall ite only one of the best('nown passa!es: [21]
10 ne!ro is a ne!ro. He only beomes a slave in ertain irumstanes.
0 otton(spinnin! &enny is a mahine for spinnin! otton. nly in
ertain irumstanes does it beome apital. Torn from thoseirumstanes it is no more apital than !old is money or su!ar the
prie of su!ar.2
Thus the ob&etive forms of all soial phenomena han!e onstantly in the
ourse of their easeless dialetial interations with eah other. The
intelli!ibility of ob&ets develops in proportion as we !rasp their funtion
/9
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#19http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#19http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#20http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#21http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#19http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#20http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#218/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
15/78
in the totality to whih they belon!. This is why only the dialetial
oneption of totality an enable us to understand rea'it* as a socia'
process 7or only this oneption dissolves the fetishisti forms
neessarily produed by the apitalist mode of prodution and enables us
to see them as mere illusions whih are not less illusory for bein! seen to
be neessary. These unmediated onepts, these $laws% sprout &ust as
inevitably from the soil of apitalism and veil the real relations between
ob&ets.
They an all be seen as ideas neessarily held by the a!ents of the
apitalist system of prodution. They are, therefore, ob&ets of 'nowled!e,
but the ob&et whih is 'nown throu!h them is not the apitalist system of
prodution itself, but the ideolo!y of its rulin! lass.
nly when this veil is torn aside does historial 'nowled!e beome
possible. 7or the funtion of these unmediated onepts that have been
derived from the fetishisti forms of ob&etivity is to ma'e the phenomena
of apitalist soiety appear as supra(historial essenes. The 'nowled!e of
the real, ob&etive nature of a phenomenon, the 'nowled!e of its historial
harater and the 'nowled!e of its atual funtion in the totality of soiety
form, therefore, a sin!le, undivided at of o!nition. This unity is
shattered by the pseudo(sientifi method. Thus only throu!h thedialetial method ould the distintion between onstant and variable
apital, ruial to eonomis, be understood. @lassial eonomis was
unable to !o beyond the distintion between fixed and irulatin! apital.
This was not aidental. 7or 1variable apital is only a partiular historial
manifestation of the fund for providin! the neessaries of life, or the
labour(fund whih the labourer requires for the maintenane of himself
and his family, and whih whatever be the system of soial prodution, he
must himself produe and reprodue. If the labour(fund onstantly flows
to him in the form of money that pays for his labour, it is beause the
produt he has reated moves onstantly away from him in the form of
apital.... The transation is veiled by the fat that the produt appears as a
ommodity and the ommodity as money.2 [22]
/
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
16/78
The fetishisti illusions envelopin! all phenomena in apitalist soiety
sueed in onealin! reality, but more is onealed than the historial,
i.e. transitory, ephemeral nature of phenomena. This onealment is made
possible by the fat that in apitalist soiety man%s environment, and
espeially the ate!ories of eonomis, appear to him immediately and
neessarily in forms of ob&etivity whih oneal the fat that they are the
ate!ories of the re'ations o !en ith each otherInstead they appear as
thin!s and the relations of thin!s with eah other. Therefore, when the
dialetial method destroys the fition of the immortality of the ate!ories
it also destroys their reified harater and lears the way to a 'nowled!e
of reality. 0ordin! to n!els in his disussion of Marx%s .riti/ue o
0o'itica' 1cono!*, 1eonomis does not treat of thin!s, but of the
relations between persons and, in the last analysis, between lasses;however, these relations are alwaysbound to things and appear as
things2[23]
It is by virtue of this insi!ht that the dialetial method and its onept
of totality an be seen to provide real 'nowled!e of what !oes on in
soiety. It mi!ht appear as if the dialeti relations between parts and
whole were no more than a onstrut of thou!ht as remote from the true
ate!ories of soial reality as the unmediated formulae of bour!eois
eonomis. If so, the superiority of dialetis would be purelymethodolo!ial. The real differene, however, is deeper and more
fundamental.
0t every sta!e of soial evolution eah eonomi ate!ory reveals a
definite relation between men. This relation beomes onsious and is
oneptualised. "eause of this the inner lo!i of the movement of human
soiety an be understood at one as the produt of men themselves and of
fores that arise from their relations with eah other and whih have
esaped their ontrol. Thus the eonomi ate!ories beome dynami and
dialetial in a double sense. 0s $pure% eonomi ate!ories they are
involved in onstant interation with eah other, and that enables us to
understand any !iven historial ross(setion throu!h the evolution of
soiety. "ut sine they have arisen out of human relations and sine they
funtion in the proess of the transformation of human relations, the atual
/=
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#23http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#23http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#238/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
17/78
proess of soial evolution beomes visible in their reiproal relationship
with the reality underlyin! their ativity. That is to say, the prodution and
reprodution of a partiular eonomi totality, whih siene hopes to
understand, is neessarily transformed into the proess of prodution and
reprodution of a partiularsocia' totality; in the ourse of this
transformation, $pure% eonomis are naturally transended, thou!h this
does not mean that we must appeal to any transendental fores. Marx
often insisted upon this aspet of dialetis. 7or instane: [24]
1@apitalist prodution, therefore, under its aspet of a ontinuous
onneted proess or as a proess of reprodution produes not only
ommodities, not only surplus value, but it also produes and
reprodues the apitalist relation itself, on the one hand the apitalist
and on the other, the labourer.2
4
To posit oneself, to produe and reprodue oneself - that is rea'it* He!el
learly pereived this and expressed it in a way losely similar to that of
Marx, albeit loa'ed in abstration and misunderstandin! itself and thus
openin! the way to further misunderstandin!. 13hat is atual is neessary
in itself,2 he says in the0hi'osoph* o 2ight 1Geessity onsists in this
that the whole is sundered into the different onepts and that this divided
whole yields a fixed and permanent determinay. However, this is not a
fossilised determinay but one whih permanently rereates itself in its
dissolution.2 [25]The deep affinities between historial materialism and
He!el%s philosophy are learly manifested here, for both oneive of
theory as these'$3no'edge o rea'it*Gevertheless, we must briefly
point to the ruial differene between them. This is li'ewise loated in
the problem of reality and of the unity of the historial proess.
Marx reproahed He!el )and, in even stron!er terms, He!el%ssuessors who had reverted to Eant and 7ihte* with his failure to
overome the duality of thou!ht and bein!, of theory and pratie, of
sub&et and ob&et. He maintained that He!el%s dialeti, whih purported
to be an inner, real dialeti of the historial proess, was a mere illusion:
in the ruial point he failed to !o beyond Eant. His 'nowled!e is no
/>
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#24http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#25http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#24http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#258/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
18/78
more than 'now'edge about an essentially alien material. It was not the
ase that this material, human soiety, ame to now itself. 0s he remar's
in the deisive sentenes of his ritique,[26]
10lready with He!el, the absolute spirit of history has its material inthe masses, but only finds adequate expression in philosophy. "ut the
philosopher appears merely as the instrument by whih absolute spirit,
whih ma'es history, arrives at self(onsiousness after the historial
movement has been ompleted. The philosopher%s role in history is
thus limited to this subsequent onsiousness, for the real movement is
exeuted unonsiously by the absolute spirit. Thus the philosopher
arrivespost estu!2
He!el, then, permits
1absolute spirit qua absolute spirit to ma'e history only in
appearane. ... 7or, as absolute spirit does not appear in the mind of the
philosopher in the shape of the reative world(spirit until after the
event, it follows that it ma'es history only in the onsiousness, the
opinions and the ideas of the philosophers, only in the speulative
ima!ination.2
He!el%s oneptual mytholo!y has been definitively eliminated by the
ritial ativity of the youn! Marx.
It is, however, not aidental that Marx ahieved $self(understandin!%
in the ourse of opposin! a reationary He!elian movement revertin! ba'
to Eant. This movement exploited He!el%s obsurities and inner
unertainties in order to eradiate the revolutionary elements from his
method. It strove to harmonise the reationary ontent, the reationary
oneptual mytholo!y, the vesti!es of the ontemplative dualism of
thou!ht and existene with the onsistently reationary philosophy whih
prevailed in the #ermany of the day.
"y adoptin! the pro!ressive part of the He!elian method, namely the
dialeti, Marx not only ut himself off from He!el%s suessors; he also
split He!el%s philosophy in two. He too' the historial tendeny in He!el
to its lo!ial extreme: he radially transformed all the phenomena both of
soiety and of soialised man into historial problems: he onretely
revealed the real substratum of historial evolution and developed a
/?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#26http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#26http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#268/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
19/78
seminal method in the proess. He measured He!el%s philosophy by the
yardsti' he had himself disovered and systematially elaborated, and he
found it wantin!. The mytholo!isin! remnants of the $eternal values%
whih Marx eliminated from the dialeti belon! basially on the same
level as the philosophy of refletion whih He!el had fou!ht his whole
life lon! with suh ener!y and bitterness and a!ainst whih he had pitted
his entire philosophial method, with its ideas of proess and onrete
totality, dialetis and history. In this sense Marx%s ritique of He!el is the
diret ontinuation and extension of the ritiism that He!el himself
levelled at Eant and 7ihte. [27]So it ame about that Marx%s dialetial
method ontinued what He!el had striven for but had failed to ahieve in
a onrete form. 0nd, on the other hand, the orpse of the written system
remained for the saven!in! philolo!ists and system(ma'ers to feast upon.
It is at reality itself that He!el and Marx part ompany. He!el was
unable to penetrate to the real drivin! fores of history. Fartly beause
these fores were not yet fully visible when he reated his system. In
onsequene he was fored to re!ard the peoples and their onsiousness
as the true bearers of historial evolution. )"ut he did not disern their real
nature beause of the .hetero!eneous omposition of that onsiousness.
So he mytholo!ised it into the $spirit of the people%.* "ut in part he
remained imprisoned in the Flatoni and Eantian outloo', in the duality ofthou!ht and bein!, of form and matter, notwithstandin! his very ener!eti
efforts to brea' out. ven thou!h he was the first to disover the meanin!
of onrete totality, and even thou!h his thou!ht was onstantly bent upon
overomin! every 'ind of abstration, matter still remained tainted for
him with the 4stain of the speifi% )and here he was very muh the
Flatonist*. These ontraditory and onflitin! tendenies ould not be
larified within his system. They are often &uxtaposed, unmediated,
ontraditory and unreoniled. In onsequene, the ultimate )apparent*
synthesis had perfore to turn to the past rather than the future. [28]It is no
wonder that from very early on bour!eois siene hose to dwell on these
aspets of He!el. 0s a result the revolutionary ore of his thou!ht beame
almost totally obsure even for Marxists.
/A
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#27http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#28http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#27http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#288/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
20/78
0 oneptual mytholo!y always points to the failure to understand a
fundamental ondition of human existene, one whose effets annot be
warded off. This failure to penetrate the ob&et is expressed intelletually
in terms of transendental fores whih onstrut and shape reality, the
relations between ob&ets, our relations with them and their
transformations in the ourse of history in a mytholo!ial fashion. "y
reo!nisin! that 1the prodution and reprodution of real life )is* in the
last resort the deisive fator in history2, [29]Marx and n!els !ained a
vanta!e(point from whih they ould settle aounts with all mytholo!ies.
He!el%s absolute spirit was the last of these !randiose mytholo!ial
shemes. It already ontained the totality and its movement, even thou!h
it was unaware of its real harater. Thus in historial materialism reason
1whih has always existed thou!h not always in a rationalform2,[30]ahieved that $rational% form by disoverin! its real substratum,
the basis from whih human life will really be able to beome onsious
of itself. This ompleted the pro!ramme of He!el%s philosophy of history,
even thou!h at the ost of the destrution of his system. In ontrast to
nature in whih, as He!el emphasises, [31]1han!e !oes in a irle,
repeatin! the same thin!2, han!e in history ta'es plae 1in the onept as
well as on the surfae. It is the onept itself whih is orreted.2
5
The premise of dialetial materialism is, we reall: 1It is not men%s
onsiousness that determines their existene, but on the ontrary, their
soial existene that determines their onsiousness.2 nly in the ontext
s'ethed above an this premise point beyond mere theory and beome a
question of praxis. nly when the ore of existene stands revealed as a
soial proess an existene be seen as the produt, albeit the hitherto
unonsious produt, of human ativity. This ativity will be seen in its
turn as the element ruial for the transformation of existene. Man finds
himself onfronted by purely natural relations or soial forms mystified
into natural relations. They appear to be fixed, omplete and immutable
entities whih an be manipulated and even omprehended, but never
overthrown. "ut also this situation reates the possibility of praxis in the
individual onsiousness. Fraxis beomes the form of ation appropriate
4B
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#29http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#30http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#30http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#31http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#29http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#30http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#318/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
21/78
to the isolated individual, it beomes his ethis. 7euerbah%s attempt to
supersede He!el foundered on this reef: li'e the #erman idealists, and to a
muh !reater extent than He!el, he stopped short at the isolated individual
of $ivil soiety%.
Marx ur!ed us to understand $the sensuous world%, the ob&et, reality, as
human sensuous ativity. [32]This means that man must beome onsious
of himself as a soial bein!, as simultaneously the sub&et and ob&et of
the soio(historial proess. In feudal soiety man ould not yet see
himself as a soial bein! beause his soial relations were still mainly
natural. Soiety was far too unor!anised and had far too little ontrol over
the totality of relations between men for it to appear to onsiousness
as thereality of man. )The question of the struture and unity of feudal
soiety annot be onsidered in any detail here.* "our!eois soiety arried
out the proess of soialisin! soiety. @apitalism destroyed both the
spatio(temporal barriers between different lands and territories and also
the le!al partitions between the different $estates% )5t6nde*. In its universe
there is a formal equality for all men; the eonomi relations that diretly
determined the metaboli exhan!e between men and nature pro!ressively
disappear. Man beomes, in the true sense of the word, a soial bein!.
Soiety. beomes the reality for man.
Thus the reo!nition that soiety is reality beomes possible only under
apitalism, in bour!eois soiety. "ut the lass whih arried out this
revolution did so without onsiousness of its funtion; the soial fores it
unleashed, the very fores that arried it to supremay seemed to be
opposed to it li'e a seond nature, but a more soulless, impenetrable
nature than feudalism ever was. [33]It was neessary for the proletariat to
be born for soial reality to beome fully onsious. The reason for this is
that the disovery of the lass(outloo' of the proletariat provided a
vanta!e point from whih to survey the whole of soiety. 3ith the
emer!ene of historial materialism there arose the theory of the
1onditions for the liberation of the proletariat2 and the dotrine of reality
understood as the total proess of soial evolution. This was only possible
beause for the proletariat the total 'nowled!e of its lass(situation was a
vital neessity, a matter of life and death; beause its lass situation
4/
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#32http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#33http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#32http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#338/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
22/78
beomes omprehensible only if the whole of soiety an be understood;
and beause this understandin! is the inesapable preondition of its
ations. Thus the unity of theory and pratie is only the reverse side of
the soial and historial position of the proletariat. 7rom its own point of
view self('nowled!e oinides with 'nowled!e of the whole so that the
proletariat is at one and the same time the sub&et and ob&et of its own
'nowled!e.
The mission of raisin! humanity to a hi!her level is based, as He!el
ri!htly observed [34])althou!h he was still onerned with nations*, on the
fat that these 1sta!es of evolution exist as im!ediate, natura',
princip'es+ and it devolves upon every nation )i.e. lass* 1endowed with
suh a natura'priniple to put it into pratie.2 Marx onretises this idea
with !reat larity by applyin! it to soial development: [35]
1If soialist writers attribute this world(historial role to the proletariat
it is not beause they believe ... that the proletariat are !ods. 7ar from
it. The proletariat an and must liberate itself beause when the
proletariat is fully developed, its humanity and even the appearane of
its humanity has beome totally abstrat; beause in the onditions of
its life all the onditions of life of ontemporary soiety find their most
inhuman onsummation; beause in the proletariat man is lost to
himself but at the same time he has aquired a theoretial
onsiousness of this loss, and is driven by the absolutely imperiousditates of his misery - the pratial expression of this neessity -
whih an no lon!er be i!nored or whitewashed, to rebel a!ainst this
inhumanity. However, the proletariat annot liberate itself without
destroyin! the onditions of its own life. "ut it annot do that without
destroyin! all the inhuman onditions of life in ontemporary soiety
whih exist in the proletariat in a onentrated form.2
Thus the essene of the method of historial materialism is inseparable
from the $pratial and ritial% ativity of the proletariat: both are aspets
of the same proess of soial evolution. So, too, the 'nowled!e of realityprovided by the dialetial method is li'ewise inseparable from the lass
standpoint of the proletariat. The question raised by the 0ustrian Marxists
of the methodolo!ial separation of the $pure% siene of Marxism from
soialism is a pseudo(problem. [36]7or, the Marxist method, the dialetial
materialist 'nowled!e of reality, an arise only from the point of view of a
44
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#34http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#35http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#36http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#34http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#35http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#368/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
23/78
lass, from the point of view of the stru!!le of the proletariat. To abandon
this point of view is to move away from historial materialism, &ust as to
adopt it leads diretly into the thi' of the stru!!le of the proletariat.
Historial materialism !rows out of the 1immediate, natural2 life(priniple of the proletariat; it means the aquisition of total 'nowled!e of
reality from this one point of view. "ut it does not follow from this that
this 'nowled!e or this methodolo!ial attitude is the inherent or natural
possession of the proletariat as a lass )let alone of proletarian
individuals*. n the ontrary. It is true that the proletariat is the onsious
sub&et of total soial reality. "ut the onsious sub&et is not defined here
as in Eant, where $sub&et% is defined as that whih an never be an ob&et.
The $sub&et% here is not a detahed spetator of the proess. The
proletariat is more than &ust the ative and passive part of this proess: the
rise and evolution of its 'nowled!e and its atual rise and evolution in the
ourse of history are &ust the two different sides of the same real proess.
It is not simply the ase that the wor'in! lass arose in the ourse of
spontaneous, unonsious ations born of immediate, diret despair )the
+uddite destrution of mahines an serve as a primitive illustration of
this*, and then advaned !radually throu!h inessant soial stru!!le to the
point where it 1formed itself into a lass.2 "ut it is no less true that
proletarian onsiousness of soial reality, of its own lass situation, of itsown historial voation and the materialist view of history are all produts
of this self(same proess of evolution whih historial materialism
understands adequately and for what it really is for the first time in
history.
Thus the Marxist method is equally as muh the produt of lass
warfare as any other politial or eonomi produt. In the same way, the
evolution of the proletariat reflets the inner struture of the soiety whih
it was the first to understand. 1Its result, therefore, appears &ust as
onstantly presupposed by it as its presuppositions appear as its
results.2[37]The idea of totality whih we have ome to reo!nise as the
presupposition neessary to omprehend reality is the produt of history in
a double sense.
48
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#37http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#37http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm#378/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
24/78
7irst, historial materialism beame a formal, ob&etive possibility only
beause eonomi fators reated the proletariat, beause the proletariat
did emer!e )i.e. at a partiular sta!e of historial development*, and
beause the sub&et and ob&et of the 'nowled!e of soial reality were
transformed. Seond, this formal possibility beame a real one only in the
ourse of the evolution of the proletariat. If the meanin! of history is to be
found in the proess of history itself and not, as formerly, in a
transendental, mytholo!ial or ethial meanin! foisted on to realitrant
material, this presupposes a proletariat with a relatively advaned
awareness of its own position, i.e. a relatively advaned proletariat, and,
therefore, a lon! preedin! period of evolution. The path ta'en by this
evolution leads from utopia to the 'nowled!e of reality; from
transendental !oals fixed by the first !reat leaders of the wor'ers%movement to the lear pereption by the @ommune of /?>/ that the
wor'in!(lass has 1no ideals to realise2, but wishes only 1to liberate the
elements of the new soiety.2 It is the path leadin! from the 1lass
opposed to apitalism2 to the lass 1for itself.2
Seen in this li!ht the revisionist separation of movement and ultimate
!oal represents a re!ression to the most primitive sta!e of the wor'in!(
lass movement. 7or the ultimate !oal is not a $state of the future%
awaitin! the proletariat somewhere independent of the movement and thepath leadin! up to it. It is not a ondition whih an be happily for!otten
in the stress of daily life and realled only in Sunday sermons as a stirrin!
ontrast to wor'aday ares. Gor is it a $duty%, an $idea% desi!ned to
re!ulate the $real% proess. The ultimate !oal is rather that re'ation to the
tota'it* (tothe whole of soiety seen as a proess*, throu!h whih every
aspet of the stru!!le aquires its revolutionary si!nifiane. This relation
informs every aspet in its simple and sober ordinariness, but only
onsiousness ma'es it real and so onfers reality on the day(to(day
stru!!le by manifestin! its relation to the whole. Thus it elevates mere
existene to reality. 5o not let us for!et either that every attempt to resue
the $ultimate !oal% or the $essene% of the proletariat from every impure
ontat with - apitalist( existene leads ultimately to the same
remoteness from reality, from $pratial, ritial ativity% and to the same
49
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
25/78
relapse into the utopian dualism of sub&et and ob&et, of theory and
pratie to whih evisionism has suumbed. [38]
The pratial dan!er of every suh dualism shows itself in the loss of
any diretive for action 0s soon as you abandon the !round of reality thathas been onquered and reonquered by dialetial materialism, as soon
as you deide to remain on the $natural% !round of existene, of the
empirial in its star', na'ed brutality, you reate a !ulf between the
sub&et of an ation and the milieu of the $fats% in whih the ation
unfolds so that they stand opposed to eah other as harsh, irreonilable
priniples. It then beomes impossible to impose the sub&etive will, wish
or deision upon the fats or to disover in them any diretive for ation.
0 situation in whih the $fats% spea' out unmista'ably for or a!ainst a
definite ourse of ation has never existed, and neither an or will exist.
The more onsientiously the fats are explored - in their isolation, i.e. in
their unmediated relations - the less ompellin!ly will they point in any
one diretion. It is self(evident that a merely sub&etive deision will be
shattered by the pressure of unomprehended fats atin! automatially
$aordin! to laws%.
Thus dialetial materialism is seen to offer the only approah to reality
whih an !ive ation a diretion. The self('nowled!e, both sub&etiveand ob&etive, of the proletariat at a !iven point in its evolution is at the
same time 'nowled!e of the sta!e of development ahieved by the whole
soiety. The fats no lon!er appear stran!e when they are omprehended
in their oherent reality, in the relation of all partial aspets to their
inherent, but hitherto uneluidated roots in the whole: we then pereive
the tendenies whih strive towards the entre of reality, to what we are
wont to all the ultimate !oal. This ultimate !oal is not an abstrat ideal
opposed to the proess, but an aspet of truth and reality. It is the onrete
meanin! of eah sta!e reahed and an inte!ral part of the onrete
moment. "eause of this, to omprehend it is to reo!nise the diretion
ta'en )unonsiously* by events and tendenies towards the totality. It is
to 'now the diretion that determines onretely the orret ourse of
ation at any !iven moment - in terms of the interest of the total proess,
viC. the emanipation of the proletariat.
4
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
26/78
However, the evolution of soiety onstantly hei!htens the tension
between the partial aspets and the whole. ust beause the inherent
meanin! of reality shines forth with an ever more resplendent li!ht, the
meanin! of the proess is embedded ever more deeply in day(to(day
events, and totality permeates the spatio(temporal harater of
phenomena. The path to onsiousness throu!hout the ourse of history
does not beome smoother but on the ontrary ever more arduous and
exatin!. 7or this reason the tas' of orthodox Marxism, its vitory over
evisionism and utopianism an never mean the defeat, one and for all,
of false tendenies. It is an ever(renewed stru!!le a!ainst the insidious
effets of bour!eois ideolo!y on the thou!ht of the proletariat. Marxist
orthodoxy is no !uardian of traditions, it is the eternally vi!ilant prophet
prolaimin! the relation between the tas's of the immediate present andthe totality of the historial proess. Hene the words of the .o!!unist
7aniesto on the tas's of orthodoxy and of its representatives, the
@ommunists, have lost neither their relevane nor their value:
1The @ommunists are distin!uished from the other wor'in!(lass
parties b* this on'*8 /. In the national stru!!les of the proletarians of
the different ountries, they point out and brin! to the front the
ommon interests of the entire proletariat, independent of nationality.
4. In the various sta!es of development whih the stru!!le of the
wor'in! lass a!ainst the bour!eoisie has to pass throu!h, they alwaysand everywhere represent the interests of the !o"e!ent as a ho'e2
7arch 9:9:
NOTES
1.Introdution to the @ritique of He!el%s Fhilosophy of i!ht ,p.
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
27/78
6.0 @ontribution to the @ritique of Folitial onomy,)my italis*. It is of thefirst importane to realise that the method is limited here to the realms of historyand soiety. The misunderstandin!s that arise from n!els% aount of dialetis
an in the main be put down to the fat that n!els - followin! He!el%s mista'en
lead - extended the method to apply also to nature. However, the ruial
determinants of dialetis - the interation of sub&et and ob&et, the unity of
theory and pratie, the historial han!es in the reality underlyin! the ate!oriesas the root ause of han!es in thou!ht, et. - are absent from our 'nowled!e of
nature. Knfortunately it is not possible to underta'e a detailed analysis of these
questions here.
7.;bid., pp. 4A?(A.
8.Introdution to The @lass Stru!!les in 7rane ."ut it must be borne in mind that$sientifi exatitude% presupposes that the elements remain $onstant%. This had
been postulated as far ba' as #alileo.
9..apita' III,p. 4B(? and 8B>. The distintion betweenexistene )whih is divided into appearane, phenomenon and essene* and reality
derives fromHe!el%s@ogic. It is unfortunately not possible here to disuss thede!ree to whih the oneptual framewor' of .apita' is based on these
distintions. Similarly, the distintion between idea )Lorstellun!* and onept
)"e!riff* is also to be found in He!el.
10..apita' III, p. >A>.
11.0 @ontribution to Folitial onomy, p. 4A8.
12.;bid., p. 4>8. The ate!ory of refletive onnetion also derives fromHe!el%s@ogic See xplanatory Gotes for this oneptJ.
13.The Foverty of Fhilosophy, p. /48.
14.3e would draw the attention of readers with a !reater interest in questions ofmethodolo!y to the fat that in He!el%s lo!i, too, the relation of the parts to the
whole forms the dialetial transition from existene to reality. It must be noted in
this ontext that the question of the relation of internal and external also treated
there is li'ewise onerned with the problem of totality. He!el, Aer3e IL, pp. /
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
28/78
relation. @f.%ie7ar-sche Beschichts$ Bese''schats$ und 5taatstheorie, "erlin,
/A4A, II, pp. /.
35.
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
29/78
36.Hilferdin!,FinanD3apita',pp. LIII(IN.
37.@apital III.
38.@f. Oinoviev%s polemis a!ainst #uesde and his attitude to the war inStutt!art. Begen den 5tro!,pp. 9>B(/. +i'ewise +enin%s boo',1+eft(3in!2
@ommunism - an Infantile 5isorder.
4A
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
30/78
History and Class Consciousness, Preface
TH olletion and publiation of these essays in boo' form is not
intended to !ive them a !reater importane as a whole than would be due
to eah individually. 7or the most part they are attempts, arisin! out ofatual wor' for the party, to larify the theoretial problems of the
revolutionary movement in the mind ,of the author and his readers. The
exeptions to this are the two essays2eiication and the .onsciousness o
the 0ro'etariat and Toards a 7ethodo'og* o the 0rob'e! o
Crganisation whih were both written speially for this olletion durin!
a period of enfored leisure. They, too, are based on already existin!
oasional piees.
0lthou!h they have now been partly revised, no systemati attempt has
been made. to remove the traes of the partiular irumstanes in whih
they were written. In some ases a radial reastin! of an essay would
have meant destroyin! what I re!ard as its inner ore of truth. Thus in the
essay on The .hanging Function o Eistorica' 7ateria'is! we an still
hear the ehoes of those exa!!eratedly san!uine hopes that many of us
herished onernin! the duration and tempo of the revolution. The reader
should not, therefore, loo' to these essays for a omplete sientifi
system.
5espite this the boo' does have a definite unity. This will be found in
the sequene of the essays, whih for this reason are best read in the order
proposed. However, it would perhaps be advisable for readers unversed in
philosophy to put off the hapter on reifiation to the very end.
0 few words of explanation P superfluous for many readers perhaps
P are due for the prominene !iven in these pa!es to the presentation,
interpretation and, disussion of the theories of osa +uxembur!. n thispoint I would say, firstly, that osa +uxembur!, alone amon! Marx%s
disiples, has made a real advane on his life%s wor' in both the ontent
and method of his eonomi dotrines. She alone has found a way to
apply them onretely to the present state of soial development. f
ourse, in these pa!es, in pursuane of the tas' we have set ourselves, it is
8B
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
31/78
the methodolo!ial aspet of these questions that will be most heavily
stressed. There will be no assessment of the eonomi ontent of the
theory of aumulation, nor of Marx%s eonomi theories as suh: we shall
onfine our disussion to their methodolo!ial premises and impliations.
It will in any ase be obvious to the reader that the present writer upholds
the validity of their ontent. Seondly, a detailed analysis of osa
+uxembur!%s thou!ht is neessary beause its seminal disoveries no less
than its errors have had a deisive influene on the theories of Marxists
outside ussia, above all in #ermany. To some extent this influene
persists to this day. 7or anyone whose interest was first aroused by these
problems a truly revolutionary, @ommunist and Marxist position an be
aquired only throu!h a ritial onfrontation with the theoretial life%s,
wor' of osa +uxembur!.
ne we ta'e this path we disover that the writin!s and speehes of
+enin beome ruial, !ethodo'ogica''* spea'in!. It is not our intention to
onern ourselves here with +enin%s politial ahievements. "ut &ust
beause our tas' is onsiously one(sided and limited it is essential that
we remind ourselves onstantly of +enin%s importane as a
theoretician for the development of Marxism. This has been obsured for
many people by his overwhelmin! impat as a politiian. The immediate
pratial importane of eah of his utteranes for the partiular moment inwhih they are made is always so !reat as to blind some people to the fat
that, in the last resort, he is only so effetive in pratie beause of his
!reatness, profundity and fertility as a theoretiian. His effetiveness rests
on the fat that he has developed thepractica' essence of Marxism to a
pith of larity and onreteness never before ahieved. He has resued
this aspet of Marxism from an almost total oblivion and by virtue of
this theoretica' action he has one a!ain plaed in our hands the 'ey to a
ri!ht understandin! of Marxist method.
7or it is our tas' P and this is the fundamental onvition underlyin!
this boo' P to understand the essene of Marx%s method and to apply it
orretly. In no sense do we aspire to $improve% on it. If on a number of
oasions ertain statements of n!els% are made the ob&et of a polemial
atta' this has been done, as every pereptive reader will observe, in the
8/
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
32/78
spirit of the system as a whole. n these partiular points the author
believes, ri!htly or wron!ly, that he is defendin! orthodox Marxism
a!ainst n!els himself.
3e adhere to Marx%s dotrines, then, without ma'in! any attempt todiver!e from them, to improve or orret them. The !oal of these
ar!uments is an interpretation, an exposition of Marx%s theory as 7ar-
understood it "ut this $orthodoxy% does not in the least strive to preserve
what Mr. von Struve alls the $aestheti inte!rity% of Marx%s system. n
the ontrary, our underlyin! premise here is the belief that in Marx%s
theory and method the true !ethodby whih to understand soiety and
history has finally been disovered. This method is historial throu!h and
throu!h. It is self(evident, therefore, that it must be onstantly applied to
itself, and this is one of the foal points of these essays. 0t the same time
this entails ta'in! up a substantive position with re!ard to the ur!ent
problems of the present; for aordin! to this view of Marxist method its
pre(eminent aim is 3no'edge o the present ur preoupation with
methodolo!y in these essays has left little spae for an analysis of the
onrete problems of the present. 7or this reason the author would li'e to
ta'e this opportunity to state unequivoally that in his view the
experienes of the years of revolution have provided a ma!nifient
onfirmation of all the essential aspets of orthodox )i.e. @ommunist*Marxism. The war, the risis and the evolution, not exludin! the so(
alled slower tempo in the development of the evolution and the new
eonomi poliy of Soviet ussia have not thrown up a sin!le problem
that annot be solved by the dialetial method P and by that
method a'one The onrete answers to partiular pratial problems lie
outside the framewor' of these essays. The tas' they propose is to ma'e
us aware of Marxist method, to throw li!ht on it as an unendin!ly fertile
soure of solutions to otherwise intratable dilemmas.
This is also the purpose of the opious quotations from the wor's of
Marx and n!els. Some readers may indeed find them all too plentiful.
"ut every quotation is also an interpretation. 0nd it seems to the present
writer that many very relevant aspets of the Marxist method have been
unduly ne!leted, above all those whih are indispensable for
84
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
33/78
understandin! the oherent struture of that method from the point of
view f lo!i as well as ontent. 0s a onsequene it has beome
diffiult, if not almost impossible, to understand the life nerve of that
method, namely the dialeti.
3e annot do &ustie to the onrete, historial dialeti without
onsiderin! in some detail the founder of this method, He!el, and his
relation to Marx. Marx%s warnin! not to treat He!el as a $dead do!% has
!one unheeded even by many !ood Marxists. )The efforts of n!els and
Fle'hanov have also been all too ineffetual.* 6et Marx frequently drew
attention to this dan!er. Thus he wrote of 5ietC!en: 1It is his bad lu' that
he mana!ed not to study He!el.2 )+etter to n!els, >.//./?=?.* 0nd in
another letter )dated //././?=?* we read: 1The !entlemen in #ermany ...
thin' that He!el%s dialeti is a $dead do!%. In this respet 7euerbah has
muh on his onsiene.2 In a letter dated /9 anuary, /?
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
34/78
of categories o centra' i!portance and in constant use stem diretly from
He!el%s@ogic 3e need only reall the He!elian ori!in and the
substantive and methodolo!ial importane of what is for Marx as
fundamental a distintion as the one between immediay and mediation. If
this ould !o unnoticed then it must be &ust as true even today that He!el
is still treated as a $dead do!%, and this despite the fat that in the
universities he has one a!ain beomepersona grata and even
fashionable. 3hat would Frofessor LorlQnder say if a historian of
philosophy ontrived not to notie P in the wor's of a suessor of Eant,
however ritial and ori!inal, that the $syntheti unity of appereption%, to
ta'e but one instane, was derived from the @ritique o Fure2eason
The author of these pa!es wishes to brea' with suh views. He believes
that today it is of pratial importane to return in this respet to the
traditions of Marx P interpretation founded by n!els )who re!arded the
$#erman wor'ers% movement% as the $heir to lassial #erman
philosophyR*, and by Fle'hanov. He believes that all !ood Marxists should
form, in +enin%s words 1a 'ind of soiety of the materialist friends of the
He!elian dialeti2.
"ut He!el%s position today is the reverse of Marx%s own. The problem
with Marx is preisely to ta'e his method and his system as weindthe! and to demonstrate that they form a coherent unit* that !ust be
preser"ed Theopposite is true of He!el. The tas' he imposes is to separate
out from the omplex web of ideas with its sometimes !larin!
ontraditions all these!ina' e'e!ents of his thou!ht and resue them as
a "ita' inte''ectua' orce for the presentHe is a more profitable and potent
thin'er than many people ima!ine. 0nd as I see it, the more vi!orously we
set about the tas' of onfrontin! this issue the more learly we will
disern his feundity and his power as a thin'er. "ut for this we must add
)and it is a sandal that we should have to add it* that a !reater 'nowled!e
of He!el%s writin!s is utterly indispensable. f ourse we will no lon!er
expet to disover his ahievement in his total system. The system as we
have it belon!s to the past. ven this statement onedes too muh for, in
my view, a really inisive riti would have to onlude that he had to
deal, not with an authentially or!ani and oherent system, but with a
89
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
35/78
number of overlappin! systems. The ontraditions in method between
the0heno!eno'og* and the system itself are but one instane of this.
He!el must not be treated as a $dead do!%, but even so we must demolish
the $dead% arhiteture of the system in its historial form and release the
extremely relevant and modem sides of his thou!ht and help them one
a!ain to beome a vital and effetive fore in the present.
It is ommon 'nowled!e that Marx himself oneived this idea of
writin! a dialetis. 1The true laws of dialetis are already to be found in
He!el, albeit in a mystial form. 3hat is needed is to strip them of that
form,2 he wrote to 5ietC!en. I hope it is not neessary to emphasise that it
is not my intention in these pa!es to propose even the s'ethiest outline of
a system of dialetis. My aim is to stimulate discussion and. as it were, to
put the issue ba' on the a!enda from the point of view of method. Hene,
at every opportunity attention has been drawn as onretely as possible
both to those points at whih He!elian ate!ories have proved deisive for
historial materialism and also to those plaes where He!el and Marx part
ompany. In this way it is to be hoped that material and, where possible,
diretion has been provided for the very neessary disussion of this
problem. These onsiderations have also determined in part the detailed
aount of lassial philosophy in Setion II of the hapter on reifiation.
)"ut only in part. 7or it seemed to me equally essential to examine theontraditions of bour!eois thou!ht at the point where that thou!ht
reeived its hi!hest philosophial expression.*
5isussions of the 'ind ontained in these pa!es have the inevitable
defet that they fail to fulfil the P &ustifiable P demand for a ompletely
systemati theory, without offerin! any ompensation in the way of
popularity. I am only too aware of this failin!. This aount of the !enesis
and aim of these essays is offered less as an apolo!y than as a stimulus P
and this is the true aim of this wor' P to ma'e the problem of dialetial
method the fous of disussion as an ur!ent livin! problem. If these
essays provide the be!innin! or even &ust the oasion for a !enuinely
profitable disussion of dialetial method, if they sueed in ma'in!,
dialetis !enerally 'nown a!ain, they will have fulfilled their funtion
perfetly.
8
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
36/78
3hile dwellin! on suh shortomin!s I should perhaps point out to the
reader unfamiliar with dialetis one diffiulty inherent in the nature of
dialetial method relatin! to the definition of onepts and terminolo!y.
It is of the essene of dialetial method that onepts whih are false in
their abstrat one(sidedness are later transended )Dur #uhebung
ge'angen*. The proess of transendene ma'es it inevitable that we
should operate with these one(sided, abstrat and false onepts. These
onepts aquire their true meanin! less by definition than by their
funtion as aspets that are then transended in the totality. Moreover, it is
even more diffiult to establish fixed meanin!s for onepts in Marx%s
improved version of the dialeti than in the He!elian ori!inal. 7or if
onepts are only the intelletual forms of historial realities then these
forms, one(sided., abstrat and false as they are, belon! to the true unity as!enuine aspets of it. He!el%s statements about this problem of
terminolo!y in the prefae to the0heno!eno'og* are thus even more true
than He!el himself realised when he said: 1ust as the expressions $unity
of sub&et and ob&et%, of $finite and infinite%, of $bein! and thou!ht%, et.,
have the drawba' that $ob&et% and $sub&et% bear the same meanin! as
when th* e-ist outside that unit*, so that within the unity they mean
somethin! other than is implied by their expression: so, too, falsehood is
not, /ua false, any lon!er a moment of truth.2 In the pure historiisation of
the dialeti this statement reeives yet another twist: in so far as the
$false% is an aspet of the $true% it is both $false% and $non(false%. 3hen the
professional demolishers of Marx ritiise his $la' of oneptual ri!our%
and his use of $ima!e% rather than $definitions%, et., they ut as sorry a
fi!ure as did Shopenhauer when he tried to expose He!el%s $lo!ial
howlers% in his He!el ritique. 0ll that is proved is their total inability to
!rasp even the 0"@ of the dialetial method. The lo!ial onlusion for
the dialetiian to draw from this failure is not that he is faed with a
onflit between different sientifi methods, but that he is in the preseneof asocia' pheno!enon and that by oneivin! it as a soio(historial
phenomenon he an at one refute it and transend it dialetially.
G i e n n a , . h r i s t ! a s 9 : H H
8=
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
37/78
8>
8/13/2019 Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)
38/78
Class Consciousness
The question is not what !oal is en"isaged orthe time bein! by this or
that member of the proletariat, or even by the proletariat as a whole.
The question is hat is the pro'etariat and what ourse of ation will itbe fored historially to ta'e in onformity with its own nature.
Marx: The Eo'* Fa!i'*
M0N%S hief wor' brea's off &ust as he is about to embar' on the
definition of lass. This omission was to have serious onsequenes both
for the theory and the pratie of the proletariat. 7or on this vital point the
later movement was fored to base itself on interpretations, on the
ollation of oasional utteranes by Marx and n!els and on the
independent extrapolation and appliation of their method. In Marxism the
division of soiety into lasses is determined by position within the
proess of prodution. "ut what, then, is the meanin! of lass
onsiousness The question at one branhes out into a series of losely
interrelated problems. 7irst of all, how are we to understand lass
onsiousness )in theory* Seond, what is the )pratial* funtion of lass
onsiousness, so understood, in the ontext of the lass stru!!le This
leads to the further question: is the problem of lass onsiousness a
$!eneral% soiolo!ial problem or does it mean one thin! for theproletariat and another for every other lass to have emer!ed hitherto
0nd lastly, is lass onsiousness homo!eneous in nature and funtion or
an we disern different !radations and levels in it 0nd if so, what are
their pratial impliations for the lass stru!!le of the proletariat
1
In his elebrated aount of histor