Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)

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 been $superseded% by modern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

/


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#3


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#4


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#5


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.


6/78


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

>


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#10


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


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


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.

//


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#16


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


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


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]

/


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

/=


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

/>


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

/?


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


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


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/


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


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


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


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


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.


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. /


28/78

relation. @f.%ie7ar-sche Beschichts$ Bese''schats$ und 5taatstheorie, "erlin,

/A4A, II, pp. /.

35.


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.htm


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


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/


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


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, /?


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


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


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=


37/78

8>


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

Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)

Documents

Transcript of Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 1920 (Extract)