7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 1/71

Georg Lukacs

History & Class Consciousness

What is Orthodox Marxism?

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is tochange it . Marx Theses on Feuerbach.

TH!" #uestion, si$ple as it is, has %een the ocus o $uch discussion in %oth proletarian and %ourgeois circles. 'ut a$ong intellectuals it has gradually %eco$e ashiona%le to greet any

 proession o aith in Marxis$ with ironical disdain. Great disunity has prevailed even in the

(socialist) ca$p as to what constitutes the essence o Marxis$, and which theses it is(per$issi%le) to criticise and even re*ect without oreiting the right to the title o (Marxist). !n

conse#uence it ca$e to %e thought increasingly (unscientiic) to $ake scholastic exegeses o old

texts with a #uasi+'i%lical status, instead o ostering an (i$partial) study o the (acts). These

texts, it was argued, had long %een (superseded) %y $odern criticis$ and they should no longer %e regarded as the sole ount o truth.

! the #uestion were really to %e or$ulated in ter$s o such a crude antithesis it would deserve

at %est a pitying s$ile. 'ut in act it is not and never has %een- #uite so straightorward. Let usassu$e or the sake o argu$ent that recent research had disproved once and or all every one o

Marx)s individual theses. ven i this were to %e proved, every serious (orthodox) Marxist would

still %e a%le to accept all such $odern indings without reservation and hence dis$iss all oMarx)s theses in toto / without having to renounce his orthodoxy or a single $o$ent. 0rthodox

Marxis$, thereore, does not i$ply the uncritical acceptance o the results o Marx)s

investigations. !t is not the (%elie) in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis o a (sacred) %ook. 0n

the contrary, orthodoxy reers exclusively to method. !t is the scientiic conviction that dialectical$aterialis$ is the road to truth and that its $ethods can %e developed, expanded and deepened

only along the lines laid down %y its ounders. !t is the conviction, $oreover, that all atte$pts to

surpass or (i$prove) it have led and $ust lead to over+si$pliication, triviality and eclecticis$.

1

Materialist dialectic is a revolutionary dialectic. This deinition is so i$portant and altogether so

crucial or an understanding o its nature that i the pro%le$ is to %e approached in the right way

this $ust %e ully grasped %eore we venture upon a discussion o the dialectical $ethod itsel.The issue turns on the #uestion o theory and practice. 1nd this not $erely in the sense given it

 %y Marx when he says in his irst criti#ue o Hegel that 2theory %eco$es a $aterial orce when itgrips the $asses.3 456 ven $ore to the point is the need to discover those eatures and deinitions

 %oth o the theory and the ways o gripping the $asses which convert the theory, the dialectical$ethod, into a vehicle o revolution. 7e $ust extract the practical essence o the theory ro$ the

$ethod and its relation to its o%*ect. ! this is not done that (gripping the $asses) could well turn

out to %e a will o) the wisp. !t $ight turn out that the $asses were in the grip o #uite dierentorces, that they were in pursuit o #uite dierent ends. !n that event, there would %e no

necessary connection %etween the theory and their activity, it would %e a or$ that ena%les the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 2/71

$asses to %eco$e conscious o their socially necessary or ortuitous actions, without ensuring a

genuine and necessary %ond %etween consciousness and action.

!n the sa$e essay 486 Marx clearly deined the conditions in which a relation %etween theory and practice %eco$es possi%le. 2!t is not enough that thought should seek to realise itsel; reality

$ust also strive towards thought.3 0r, as he expresses it in an earlier work496

 2!t will then %erealised that the world has long since possessed so$ething in the or$ o a drea$ which it need

only take possession o consciously, in order to possess it in reality.3 0nly when consciousnessstands in such a relation to reality can theory and practice %e united. 'ut or this to happen the

e$ergence o consciousness $ust %eco$e the decisive step which the historical process $ust

take towards its proper end an end constituted %y the wills o $en, %ut neither dependent onhu$an whi$, nor the product o hu$an invention-. The historical unction o theory is to $ake

this step a practical possi%ility. 0nly when a historical situation has arisen in which a class $ust

understand society i it is to assert itsel; only when the act that a class understands itsel $eansthat it understands society as a whole and when, in conse#uence, the class %eco$es %oth the

su%*ect and the o%*ect o knowledge; in short, only when these conditions are all satisied will the

unity o theory and practice, the precondition o the revolutionary unction o the theory, %eco$e possi%le.

"uch a situation has in act arisen with the entry o the proletariat into history. 27hen the

 proletariat proclai$s the dissolution o the existing social order,3 Marx declares, 2it does no

$ore than disclose the secret o its own existence, or it is the eective dissolution o that order.34:6 The links %etween the theory that air$s this and the revolution are not *ust ar%itrary, nor are

they particularly tortuous or open to $isunderstanding. 0n the contrary, the theory is essentially

the intellectual expression o the revolutionary process itsel. !n it every stage o the process

 %eco$es ixed so that it $ay %e generalised, co$$unicated, utilised and developed. 'ecause thetheory does nothing %ut arrest and $ake conscious each necessary step, it %eco$es at the sa$e

ti$e the necessary pre$ise o the ollowing one.

To %e clear a%out the unction o theory is also to understand its own %asis, i.e. dialectical$ethod. This point is a%solutely crucial, and %ecause it has %een overlooked $uch conusion has

 %een introduced into discussions o dialectics. ngels) argu$ents in the Anti-Dühring decisively

inluenced the later lie o the theory. However we regard the$, whether we grant the$ classical

status or whether we criticise the$, dee$ the$ to %e inco$plete or even lawed, we $ust stillagree that this aspect is nowhere treated in the$. That is to say, he contrasts the ways in which

concepts are or$ed in dialectics as opposed to ($etaphysics); he stresses the act that in

dialectics the deinite contours o concepts and the o%*ects they represent- are dissolved.ialectics, he argues, is a continuous process o transition ro$ one deinition into the other. !n

conse#uence a one+sided and rigid causality $ust %e replaced %y interaction. 'ut he does not

even $ention the $ost vital interaction, na$ely the dialectical relation between  subject andobject in the historical process, let alone give it the pro$inence it deserves. <et without this

actor dialectics ceases to %e revolutionary, despite atte$pts illusory in the last analysis- to

retain (luid) concepts. =or it i$plies a ailure to recognise that in all $etaphysics the o%*ect

re$ains untouched and unaltered so that thought re$ains conte$plative and ails to %eco$e practical; while or the dialectical $ethod the central pro%le$ is to change reality.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 3/71

! this central unction o the theory is disregarded, the virtues o or$ing (luid) concepts

 %eco$e altogether pro%le$atic a purely (scientiic) $atter. The theory $ight then %e accepted or 

re*ected in accordance with the prevailing state o science without any $odiication at all toone)s %asic attitudes, to the #uestion o whether or not reality can %e changed. !ndeed, as the so+

called Machists a$ong Marx)s supporters have de$onstrated it even reinorces the view that

reality with its (o%edience to laws , in the sense used %y %ourgeois, conte$plative $aterialis$and the classical econo$ics with which it is so closely %ound up, is i$penetra%le, atalistic and

i$$uta%le. That Machis$ can also give %irth to an e#ually %ourgeois voluntaris$ does not

contradict this. =atalis$ and voluntaris$ are only $utually contradictory to an undialectical andunhistorical $ind. !n the dialectical view o history they prove to %e necessarily co$ple$entary

opposites, intellectual relexes clearly expressing the antagonis$s o capitalist society and the

intracta%ility o its pro%le$s when conceived in its own ter$s.

=or this reason all atte$pts to deepen the dialectical $ethod with the aid o (criticis$) inevita%lylead to a $ore supericial view. =or (criticis$) always starts with *ust this separation %etween

$ethod and reality, %etween thought and %eing. 1nd it is *ust this separation that it holds to %e an

i$prove$ent deserving o every praise or its introduction o true scientiic rigour into the crude,uncritical $aterialis$ o the Marxian $ethod. 0 course, no one denies the right o (criticis$) to

do this. 'ut i it does so we $ust insist that it will %e $oving counter to the essential spirit o

dialectics.

The state$ents o Marx and ngels on this point could hardly %e $ore explicit. 2ialecticsthere%y reduced itsel to the science o the general laws o $otion / %oth in the external world

and in the thought o $an / two sets o laws which are identical in substance” ngels-. 4>6 Marx

or$ulated it even $ore precisely. 2!n the study o econo$ic categories, as in the case o every

historical and social science, it $ust %e %orne in $ind that ... the categories are thereore but orms o being, conditions o e!istence ....3 4?6 ! this $eaning o dialectical $ethod is o%scured,

dialectics $ust inevita%ly %egin to look like a superluous additive, a $ere orna$ent o Marxist(sociology) or (econo$ics). ven worse, it will appear as an o%stacle to the (so%er), (i$partial)study o the (acts), as an e$pty construct in whose na$e Marxis$ does violence to the acts.

This o%*ection to dialectical $ethod has %een voiced $ost clearly and cogently %y 'ernstein,

thanks in part to a (reedo$ ro$ %ias) unclouded %y any philosophical knowledge. However, the

very real political and econo$ic conclusions he deduces ro$ this desire to li%erate $ethod ro$the (dialectical snares) o Hegelianis$, show clearly where this course leads. They show that it is

 precisely the dialectic that $ust %e re$oved i one wishes to ound a thorough+going

opportunistic theory, a theory o (evolution) without revolution and o (natural develop$ent) into"ocialis$ without any conlict.

2

7e are now aced with the #uestion o the $ethodological i$plications o these so+called acts

that are idolised throughout the whole o @evisionist literature. To what extent $ay we look tothe$ to provide guide+lines or the actions o the revolutionary proletariatA !t goes without

saying that all knowledge starts ro$ the acts. The only #uestion is which o the data o lie are

relevant to knowledge and in the context o which $ethodA

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 4/71

The %linkered e$piricist will o course deny that acts can only %eco$e acts within the

ra$ework o a syste$ / which will vary with the knowledge desired. He %elieves that every

 piece o data ro$ econo$ic lie, every statistic, every raw event already constitutes an i$portantact. !n so doing he orgets that however si$ple an enu$eration o (acts) $ay %e, however

lacking in co$$entary, it already i$plies an (interpretation). 1lready at this stage the acts have

 %een co$prehended %y a theory, a $ethod; they have %een wrenched ro$ their living contextand itted into a theory.

More sophisticated opportunists would readily grant this despite their proound and instinctive

dislike o all theory. They seek reuge in the $ethods o natural science, in the way in which

science distills (pure) acts and places the$ in the relevant contexts %y $eans o o%servation,a%straction and experi$ent. They then oppose this ideal $odel o knowledge to the orced

constructions o the dialectical $ethod.

! such $ethods see$ plausi%le at irst this is %ecause capitalis$ tends to produce a social

structure that in great $easure encourages such views. 'ut or that very reason we need the

dialectical $ethod to puncture the social illusion so produced and help us to gli$pse the realityunderlying it. The (pure) acts o the natural sciences arise when a pheno$enon o the real world

is placed in thought or in reality- into an environ$ent where its laws can %e inspected withoutoutside intererence. This process is reinorced %y reducing the pheno$ena to their purely

#uantitative essence. to their expression in nu$%ers and nu$erical relations. 0pportunists always

ail to recognise that it is in the nature o capitalis$ to process pheno$ena in this way. Marxgives an incisive account 4B6 o such a (process o a%straction) in the case o la%our, %ut he does

not o$it to point out with e#ual vigour that he is dealing with a historical peculiarity o capitalist

society.

2Thus the $ost general a%stractions co$$only appear where there is the highest concrete

develop$ent, where one eature appears to %e shared %y $any, and to %e co$$on to all. Then itcannot %e thought o any longer in one particular or$.3

'ut this tendency in capitalis$ goes even urther. The etishistic character o econo$ic or$s,

the reiication o all hu$an relations, the constant expansion and extension o the division ola%our which su%*ects the process o production to an a%stract, rational analysis, without regard

to the hu$an potentialities and a%ilities o the i$$ediate producers, all these things transor$

the pheno$ena o society and with the$ the way in which they are perceived. !n this way arisethe (isolated) acts, (isolated) co$plexes o acts, separate, specialist disciplines econo$ics, law,

etc.- whose very appearance see$s to have done $uch to pave the way or such scientiic

$ethods. !t thus appears extraordinarily (scientiic) to think out the tendencies i$plicit in the

acts the$selves and to pro$ote this activity to the status o science.

'y contrast, in the teeth o all these isolated and isolating acts and partial syste$s, dialectics

insists on the concrete unity o the whole. <et although it exposes these appearances or the

illusions they are / al%eit illusions necessarily engendered %y capitalis$ / in this (scientiic)at$osphere it still gives the i$pression o %eing an ar%itrary construction.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 5/71

The unscientiic nature o this see$ingly so scientiic $ethod consists, then, in its ailure to see

and take account o the historical  character o the acts on which it is %ased. This is the source o 

$ore than one error constantly overlooked %y the practitioners o the $ethod- to which ngelshas explicitly drawn attention. 46 The nature o this source o error is that statistics and the (exact)

econo$ic theory %ased upon the$ always lag %ehind actual develop$ents.

2=or this reason, it is only too oten necessary in current history, to treat this, the $ost decisive

actor, as constant, and the econo$ic situation existing at the %eginning o the period concernedas given and unaltera%le or the whole period, or else to take notice o only those changes in the

situation as arise out o the patently $aniest events the$selves and are thereore, likewise,

 patently $aniest.3

Thus we perceive that there is so$ething highly pro%le$atic in the act that capitalist society is

 predisposed to har$onise with scientiic $ethod, to constitute indeed the social pre$ises o its

exactness. ! the internal structure o the (acts) o their interconnections is essentially historical,

i, that is to say, they are caught up in a process o continuous transor$ation, then we $ay

indeed #uestion when the greater scientiic inaccuracy occurs. !t is when ! conceive o the (acts)as existing in a or$ and as su%*ect to laws concerning which ! have a $ethodological certainty

or at least pro%a%ility- that they no longer apply to these actsA 0r is it when ! consciously takethis situation into account, cast a critical eye at the (exactitude) attaina%le %y such a $ethod and

concentrate instead on those points where this historical aspect, this decisive act o change

really $aniests itsel A

The historical character o the (acts) which science see$s to have grasped with such (purity)$akes itsel elt in an even $ore devastating $anner. 1s the products o historical evolution they

are involved in continuous change. 'ut in addition they are also precisely in their objective structure the products o a deinite historical  epoch, namely capitalism. Thus when (science)

$aintains that the $anner in which data i$$ediately present the$selves is an ade#uateoundation o scientiic conceptualisation and that the actual or$ o these data is the appropriate

starting+point or the or$ation o scientiic concepts, it there%y takes its stand si$ply anddog$atically on the %asis o capitalist society. !t uncritically accepts the nature o the o%*ect as it

is given and the laws o that society as the unaltera%le oundation o (science).

!n order to progress ro$ these (acts) to acts in the true $eaning o the word it is necessary to

 perceive their historical conditioning as such and to a%andon the point o view that would seethe$ as i$$ediately given they $ust the$selves %e su%*ected to a historical and dialectical

exa$ination. =or as Marx says 4D6

2The inished pattern o econo$ic relations as seen on the surace in their real existence and

conse#uently in the ideas with which the agents and %earers o these relations seek to understandthe$, is very dierent ro$, and indeed #uite the reverse o and antagonistic to their inner.

essential %ut concealed core and the concepts corresponding to it.3

! the acts are to %e understood, this distinction %etween their real existence and their inner core

$ust %e grasped clearly and precisely. This distinction is the irst pre$ise o a truly scientiicstudy which in Marx)s words, 2would %e superluous i the outward appearance o things

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 6/71

coincided with their essence.3 45E6 Thus we $ust detach the pheno$ena ro$ the or$ in which

they are i$$ediately given and discover the intervening links which connect the$ to their core,

their essence. !n so doing, we shall arrive at an understanding o their apparent or$ and see it asthe or$ in which the inner core necessarily appears. !t is necessary %ecause o the historical

character o the acts, %ecause they have grown in the soil o capitalist society. This twoold

character, the si$ultaneous recognition and transcendence o i$$ediate appearances is preciselythe dialectical nexus.

!n this respect, supericial readers i$prisoned in the $odes o thought created %y capitalis$,

experienced the gravest diiculties in co$prehending the structure o thought in "apital. =or on

the one hand, Marx)s account pushes the capitalist nature o all econo$ic or$s to their urthestli$its, he creates an intellectual $ilieu where they can exist in their purest or$ %y positing a

society (corresponding to the theory), i.e. capitalist through and through, consisting o none %ut

capitalists and proletarians. 'ut conversely, no sooner does this strategy produce results, nosooner does this world o pheno$ena see$ to %e on the point o crystallising out into theory than

it dissolves into a $ere illusion, a distorted situation appears as in a distorting $irror which is,

however, 2only the conscious expression o an. i$aginary $ove$ent.3

0nly in this context which sees the isolated acts o social lie as aspects o the historical processand integrates the$ in a totality, can knowledge o the acts hope to %eco$e knowledge o

reality. This knowledge starts ro$ the si$ple and to the capitalist world-, pure, i$$ediate,

natural deter$inants descri%ed a%ove. !t progresses ro$ the$ to the knowledge o the concretetotality, i.e. to the conceptual reproduction o reality. This concrete totality is %y no $eans an

un$ediated datu$ or thought.

2The concrete is concrete,3 Marx says,4556 2%ecause it is a synthesis o $any particular

deter$inants, i.e. a unity o diverse ele$ents.3

!dealis$ succu$%s here to the delusion o conusing the intellectual reproduction o reality withthe actual structure o reality itsel. =or 2in thought, reality appears as the process o synthesis,

not as starting+point, %ut as outco$e, although it is the real starting+point and hence the starting+

 point or perception and ideas.3

Conversely, the vulgar $aterialists, even in the $odern guise donned %y 'ernstein and others, donot go %eyond the reproduction o the i$$ediate, si$ple deter$inants o social lie. They

i$agine that they are %eing #uite extraordinarily (exact) when they si$ply take over these

deter$inants without either analysing the$ urther or welding the$ into a concrete totality. Theytake the acts in a%stract isolation, explaining the$ only in ter$s o a%stract laws unrelated to the

concrete totality. 1s Marx o%serves

2Crudeness and conceptual nullity consist in the tendency to orge ar%itrary un$ediated

connections %etween things that %elong together in an organic union.3 4586

The crudeness and conceptual nullity o such thought lies pri$arily in the act that it o%scures the

historical, transitory nature o capitalist society. !ts deter$inants take on the appearance o

ti$eless, eternal categories valid or all social or$ations. This could %e seen at its crassest in the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 7/71

vulgar %ourgeois econo$ists, %ut the vulgar Marxists soon ollowed in their ootsteps. The

dialectical $ethod was overthrown and with it the $ethodological supre$acy o the totality over

the individual aspects; the parts were prevented ro$ inding their deinition within the wholeand, instead, the whole was dis$issed as unscientiic or else it degenerated into the $ere (idea)

or (su$) o the parts. 7ith the totality out o the way, the etishistic relations o the isolated parts

appeared as a ti$eless law valid or every hu$an society.

Marx)s dictu$ 2The relations o production o every society or$ a whole3 4596 is the$ethodological point o departure and the key to the historical understanding o social relations.

1ll the isolated partial categories can %e thought o and treated / in isolation / as so$ething that

is always present in every society. ! it cannot %e ound in a given society this is put down to(chance) as the exception that proves the rule.- 'ut the changes to which these individual aspects

are su%*ect give no clear and una$%iguous picture o the real dierences in the various stages o

the evolution o society. These can really only %e discerned in the context o the total historical process o their relation to society as a whole.

3

This dialectical conception o totality see$s to have put a great distance %etween itsel and

reality, it appears to construct reality very (unscientiically). 'ut it is the only $ethod capa%le o

understanding and reproducing reality. Concrete totality is, thereore, the category that governsreality. 45:6 The rightness o this view only e$erges with co$plete clarity when we direct our

attention to the real, $aterial su%stratu$ o our $ethod, viF. capitalist society with its internal

antagonis$ %etween the orces and the relations o production. The $ethodology o the naturalsciences which or$s the $ethodological ideal o every etishistic science and every kind o

@evisionis$ re*ects the idea o contradiction and antagonis$ in its su%*ect $atter. !, despite this,

contradictions do spring up %etween particular theories, this only proves that our knowledge is as

yet i$perect. Contradictions %etween theories show that these theories have reached theirnatural li$its; they $ust thereore %e transor$ed and su%su$ed under even wider theories in

which the contradictions inally disappear.

'ut we $aintain that in the case o social reality these contradictions are not a sign o thei$perect understanding o society; on the contrary, they %elong to the nature o reality itsel and to the nature o capitalism. 7hen the totality is known they will not %e transcended and cease to

 %e contradictions. uite the reverse. they will %e seen to %e necessary contradictions arising outo the antagonis$s o this syste$ o production. 7hen theory as the knowledge o the whole-

opens up the way to resolving these contradictions it does so %y revealing the real tendencies o

social evolution. =or these are destined to eect a real resolution o the contradictions that have

e$erged in the course o history.

=ro$ this angle we see that the conlict %etween the dialectical $ethod and that o (criticis$) or

vulgar $aterialis$, Machis$, etc.- is a social pro%le$. 7hen the ideal o scientiic knowledge is

applied to nature it si$ply urthers the progress o science. 'ut when it is applied to society itturns out to %e an ideological weapon o the %ourgeoisie. =or the latter it is a $atter o lie and

death to understand its own syste$ o production in ter$s o eternally valid categories it $ust

think o capitalis$ as %eing predestined to eternal survival %y the eternal laws o nature and

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 8/71

reason. Conversely, contradictions that cannot %e ignored $ust %e shown to %e purely surace

 pheno$ena, unrelated to this $ode o production.

The $ethod o classical econo$ics was a product o this ideological need. 'ut also its li$itationsas a science are a conse#uence o the structure o capitalist reality and the antagonistic character

o capitalist production. 7hen, or exa$ple, a thinker o @icardo)s stature can deny the2necessity o expanding the $arket along with the expansion o production and the growth o

capital3, he does so unconsciously o course-, to avoid the necessity o ad$itting that crises areinevita%le. =or crises are the $ost striking illustration o the antagonis$s in capitalist production

and it is evident that 2the %ourgeois $ode o production i$plies a li$itation to the ree

develop$ent o the orces o production.3 45>6 7hat was good aith in @icardo %eca$e aconsciously $isleading apologia o %ourgeois society in the writings o the vulgar econo$ists.

The vulgar Marxists arrived at the sa$e results %y seeking either the thorough+going eli$ination

o dialectics ro$ proletarian science, or at %est its (critical) reine$ent.

To give a grotes#ue illustration, Max 1dler wished to $ake a critical distinction %etween

dialectics as $ethod, as the $ove$ent o thought on the one hand and the dialectics o %eing, as$etaphysics on the other. His (criticis$) cul$inates in the sharp separation o dialectics ro$

 %oth and he descri%es it as a 2piece o positive science3 which 2is. what is chiely $eant %y talko real dialectics in Marxis$.3 This dialectic $ight $ore aptly %e called (antagonis$), or it

si$ply 2asserts that an opposition exists %etween the sel+interest o an individual and the social

or$s in which he is conined.3 45?6 'y this stroke the o%*ective econo$ic antagonis$ asexpressed in the class struggle evaporates, leaving only a conlict %etween the individual and society. This $eans that neither the e$ergence o internal pro%le$s, nor the collapse o capitalist

society, can %e seen to %e necessary. The end+product, whether he likes it or not, is a antian

 philosophy o history) Moreover, the structure o %ourgeois society is esta%lished as the universalor$ o society in general. =or the central pro%le$ Max 1dler tackles, o the real 2dialectics or,

 %etter, antagonis$3 is nothing %ut one o the typical ideological or$s o the capitalist socialorder. 'ut whether capitalis$ is rendered i$$ortal on econo$ic or on ideological grounds,whether with naive nonchalance, or with critical reine$ent is o little i$portance.

Thus with the re*ection or %lurring o the dialectical $ethod history %eco$es unknowa%le. This

does not i$ply that a $ore or less exact account o particular people or epochs cannot %e given

without the aid o dialectics. 'ut it does put paid to atte$pts to understand history as a uniied process. This can %e seen in the sociologically a%stract, historical constructs o the type o

"pencer and Co$te whose inner contradictions have %een convincingly exposed %y $odern

 %ourgeois historians, $ost incisively %y @ickert. 'ut it also shows itsel in the de$and or a(philosophy o history) which then turns out to have a #uite inscruta%le relationship to historical

reality.- The opposition %etween the description o an aspect o history and the description o

history as a uniied process is not *ust a pro%le$ o scope, as in the distinction %etween particular and universal history. !t is rather a conlict o $ethod, o approach. 7hatever the epoch or

special topic o study, the #uestion o a uniied approach to the process o history is inescapa%le.

!t is here that the crucial i$portance o the dialectical view o totality reveals itsel. =or it is

 perectly possi%le or so$eone to descri%e the essentials o an historical event and yet %e in thedark a%out the real nature o that event and o its unction in the historical totality, i.e. without

understanding it as part o a uniied historical process.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 9/71

1 typical exa$ple o this can %e seen in "is$ondi)s treat$ent o the #uestion o crisis. 45B6 He

understood the i$$anent tendencies in the processes o production and distri%ution. 'ut

ulti$ately he ailed %ecause, or all his incisive criticis$ o capitalis$, he re$ained i$prisonedin capitalist notions o the o%*ective and so necessarily thought o production and distri%ution as

two independent processes, 2not realising that the relations o distri%ution are only the relations

o production sub alia species.” He thus succu$%s to the sa$e ate that overtook Iroudhon)salse dialectics; 2he converts the various li$%s o society into so $any independent societies.3 456

7e repeat the category o totality does not reduce its various ele$ents to an undierentiated

unior$ity, to identity. The apparent independence and autono$y which they possess in the

capitalist syste$ o production is an illusion only in so ar as they are involved in a dyna$icdialectical relationship with one another and can %e thought o as the dyna$ic dialectical aspects

o an e#ually dyna$ic and dialectical whole. 2The result we arrive at,3 says Marx, 2is not that

 production, distri%ution, exchange and consu$ption are identical, %ut that they are all $e$%erso one totality, dierent aspects o a unit. . . . Thus a deinite or$ o production deter$ines

deinite or$s o consu$ption, distri%ution and exchange as well as deinite relations between 

these dierent elements.... 1 $utual interaction takes place %etween these various ele$ents. Thisis the case with every organic %ody.3 45D6 'ut even the category o interaction re#uires inspection.

! %y interaction we $ean *ust the reciprocal causal i$pact o two otherwise unchangea%le

o%*ects on each other, we shall not have co$e an inch nearer to an understanding o society. This

is the case with the vulgar $aterialists with their one+way causal se#uences or the Machists withtheir unctional relations-. 1ter all, there is e.g. an interaction when a stationary %illiard %all is

struck %y a $oving one the irst one $oves, the second one is delected ro$ its original path.

The interaction we have in $ind $ust %e $ore than the interaction o otherwise unchangingobjects. !t $ust go urther in its relation to the whole or this relation deter$ines the o%*ective

or$ o every o%*ect o cognition. very su%stantial change that is o concern to knowledge

$aniests itsel as a change in relation to the whole and through this as a change in the or$ o

o%*ectivity itsel.

48E6

 Marx has or$ulated this idea in countless places. ! shall cite only one o the %est+known passages 4856

21 negro is a negro. He only %eco$es a slave in certain circu$stances. 1 cotton+spinning *enny

is a $achine or spinning cotton. 0nly in certain circu$stances does it %eco$e capital. Torn ro$those circu$stances it is no $ore capital than gold is $oney or sugar the price o sugar.3

Thus the o%*ective or$s o all social pheno$ena change constantly in the course o their

ceaseless dialectical interactions with each other. The intelligi%ility o o%*ects develops in

 proportion as we grasp their unction in the totality to which they %elong. This is why only thedialectical conception o totality can ena%le us to understand reality as a social process. =or only

this conception dissolves the etishistic or$s necessarily produced %y the capitalist $ode o

 production and ena%les us to see the$ as $ere illusions which are not less illusory or %eing seento %e necessary. These un$ediated concepts, these (laws) sprout *ust as inevita%ly ro$ the soil

o capitalis$ and veil the real relations %etween o%*ects.

They can all %e seen as ideas necessarily held %y the agents o the capitalist syste$ o

 production. They are, thereore, o%*ects o knowledge, %ut the o%*ect which is known throughthe$ is not the capitalist syste$ o production itsel, %ut the ideology o its ruling class.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 10/71

0nly when this veil is torn aside does historical knowledge %eco$e possi%le. =or the unction o

these un$ediated concepts that have %een derived ro$ the etishistic or$s o o%*ectivity is to

$ake the pheno$ena o capitalist society appear as supra+historical essences. The knowledge othe real, o%*ective nature o a pheno$enon, the knowledge o its historical character and the

knowledge o its actual unction in the totality o society or$, thereore, a single, undivided act

o cognition. This unity is shattered %y the pseudo+scientiic $ethod. Thus only through thedialectical $ethod could the distinction %etween constant and varia%le capital, crucial to

econo$ics, %e understood. Classical econo$ics was una%le to go %eyond the distinction %etween

ixed and circulating capital. This was not accidental. =or 2varia%le capital is only a particularhistorical $aniestation o the und or providing the necessaries o lie, or the la%our+und which

the la%ourer re#uires or the $aintenance o hi$sel and his a$ily, and which whatever %e the

syste$ o social production, he $ust hi$sel produce and reproduce. ! the la%our+und

constantly lows to hi$ in the or$ o $oney that pays or his la%our, it is %ecause the product hehas created $oves constantly away ro$ hi$ in the or$ o capital.... The transaction is veiled

 %y the act that the product appears as a co$$odity and the co$$odity as $oney.3 4886

The etishistic illusions enveloping all pheno$ena in capitalist society succeed in concealingreality, %ut $ore is concealed than the historical, i.e. transitory, ephe$eral nature o pheno$ena.

This conceal$ent is $ade possi%le %y the act that in capitalist society $an)s environ$ent, and

especially the categories o econo$ics, appear to hi$ i$$ediately and necessarily in or$s o

o%*ectivity which conceal the act that they are the categories o the relations o men with eachother. !nstead they appear as things and the relations o things with each other. Thereore, when

the dialectical $ethod destroys the iction o the i$$ortality o the categories it also destroys

their reiied character and clears the way to a knowledge o reality. 1ccording to ngels in hisdiscussion o Marx)s "riti#ue o $olitical %conomy, 2econo$ics does not treat o things, %ut o

the relations %etween persons and, in the last analysis, %etween classes; however, these relations

are always bound to things and appear as things.3 4896

!t is %y virtue o this insight that the dialectical $ethod and its concept o totality can %e seen to provide real knowledge o what goes on in society. !t $ight appear as i the dialectic relations

 %etween parts and whole were no $ore than a construct o thought as re$ote ro$ the true

categories o social reality as the un$ediated or$ulae o %ourgeois econo$ics. ! so, thesuperiority o dialectics would %e purely $ethodological. The real dierence, however, is deeper

and $ore unda$ental.

1t every stage o social evolution each econo$ic category reveals a deinite relation %etween

$en. This relation %eco$es conscious and is conceptualised. 'ecause o this the inner logic othe $ove$ent o hu$an society can %e understood at once as the product o $en the$selves and

o orces that arise ro$ their relations with each other and which have escaped their control.

Thus the econo$ic categories %eco$e dyna$ic and dialectical in a dou%le sense. 1s (pure)econo$ic categories they are involved in constant interaction with each other, and that ena%les us

to understand any given historical cross+section through the evolution o society. 'ut since they

have arisen out o hu$an relations and since they unction in the process o the transor$ation o 

hu$an relations, the actual process o social evolution %eco$es visi%le in their reciprocalrelationship with the reality underlying their activity. That is to say, the production and

reproduction o a particular econo$ic totality, which science hopes to understand, is necessarily

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 11/71

transor$ed into the process o production and reproduction o a particular social totality; in the

course o this transor$ation, (pure) econo$ics are naturally transcended, though this does not

$ean that we $ust appeal to any transcendental orces. Marx oten insisted upon this aspect odialectics. =or instance 48:6

2Capitalist production, thereore, under its aspect o a continuous connected process or as a process o reproduction produces not only co$$odities, not only surplus value, %ut it also

 produces and reproduces the capitalist relation itsel, on the one hand the capitalist and on theother, the la%ourer.3

4

To posit onesel, to produce and reproduce onesel / that is reality. Hegel clearly perceived this

and expressed it in a way closely si$ilar to that o Marx, al%eit cloaked in a%straction and$isunderstanding itsel and thus opening the way to urther $isunderstanding. 27hat is actual is

necessary in itsel,3 he says in the $hilosophy o &ight. 2Jecessity consists in this that the whole

is sundered into the dierent concepts and that this divided whole yields a ixed and per$anentdeter$inacy. However, this is not a ossilised deter$inacy %ut one which per$anently recreates

itsel in its dissolution.3 48>6 The deep ainities %etween historical $aterialis$ and Hegel)s

 philosophy are clearly $aniested here, or %oth conceive o theory as the sel-'nowledge oreality. Jevertheless, we $ust %riely point to the crucial dierence %etween the$. This islikewise located in the pro%le$ o reality and o the unity o the historical process.

Marx reproached Hegel and, in even stronger ter$s, Hegel)s successors who had reverted to

ant and =ichte- with his ailure to overco$e the duality o thought and %eing, o theory and practice, o su%*ect and o%*ect. He $aintained that Hegel)s dialectic, which purported to %e an

inner, real dialectic o the historical process, was a $ere illusion in the crucial point he ailed to

go %eyond ant. His knowledge is no $ore than knowledge about an essentially alien $aterial.!t was not the case that this $aterial, hu$an society, ca$e to now itsel. 1s he re$arks in thedecisive sentences o his criti#ue, 48?6

21lready with Hegel, the a%solute spirit o history has its $aterial in the $asses, %ut only inds

ade#uate expression in philosophy. 'ut the philosopher appears $erely as the instru$ent %y

which a%solute spirit, which $akes history, arrives at sel+consciousness ater the historical$ove$ent has %een co$pleted. The philosopher)s role in history is thus li$ited to this

su%se#uent consciousness, or the real $ove$ent is executed unconsciously %y the a%solute

spirit. Thus the philosopher arrives post estum.3

Hegel, then, per$its

2a%solute spirit #ua a%solute spirit to $ake history only in appearance. ... =or, as a%solute spirit

does not appear in the $ind o the philosopher in the shape o the creative world+spirit until ater

the event, it ollows that it $akes history only in the consciousness, the opinions and the ideas othe philosophers, only in the speculative i$agination.3

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 12/71

Hegel)s conceptual $ythology has %een deinitively eli$inated %y the critical activity o the

young Marx.

!t is, however, not accidental that Marx achieved (sel+understanding) in the course o opposing areactionary Hegelian $ove$ent reverting %ack to ant. This $ove$ent exploited Hegel)s

o%scurities and inner uncertainties in order to eradicate the revolutionary ele$ents ro$ his$ethod. !t strove to har$onise the reactionary content, the reactionary conceptual $ythology, the

vestiges o the conte$plative dualis$ o thought and existence with the consistently reactionary philosophy which prevailed in the Ger$any o the day.

'y adopting the progressive part o the Hegelian $ethod, na$ely the dialectic, Marx not only cut

hi$sel o ro$ Hegel)s successors; he also split Hegel)s philosophy in two. He took thehistorical tendency in Hegel to its logical extre$e he radically transor$ed all the pheno$ena

 %oth o society and o socialised $an into historical pro%le$s he concretely revealed the real

su%stratu$ o historical evolution and developed a se$inal $ethod in the process. He $easured

Hegel)s philosophy %y the yardstick he had hi$sel discovered and syste$atically ela%orated,

and he ound it wanting. The $ythologising re$nants o the (eternal values) which Marxeli$inated ro$ the dialectic %elong %asically on the sa$e level as the philosophy o relection

which Hegel had ought his whole lie long with such energy and %itterness and against which hehad pitted his entire philosophical $ethod, with its ideas o process and concrete totality,

dialectics and history. !n this sense Marx)s criti#ue o Hegel is the direct continuation and

extension o the criticis$ that Hegel hi$sel levelled at ant and =ichte. 48B6 "o it ca$e a%out thatMarx)s dialectical $ethod continued what Hegel had striven or %ut had ailed to achieve in a

concrete or$. 1nd, on the other hand, the corpse o the written syste$ re$ained or the

scavenging philologists and syste$+$akers to east upon.

!t is at reality itsel that Hegel and Marx part co$pany. Hegel was una%le to penetrate to the real

driving orces o history. Iartly %ecause these orces were not yet ully visi%le when he createdhis syste$. !n conse#uence he was orced to regard the peoples and their consciousness as the

true %earers o historical evolution. 'ut he did not discern their real nature %ecause o the.heterogeneous co$position o that consciousness. "o he $ythologised it into the (spirit o the

 people).- 'ut in part he re$ained i$prisoned in the Ilatonic and antian outlook, in the duality

o thought and %eing, o or$ and $atter, notwithstanding his very energetic eorts to %reak out.

ven though he was the irst to discover the $eaning o concrete totality, and even though histhought was constantly %ent upon overco$ing every kind o a%straction, $atter still re$ained

tainted or hi$ with the (stain o the speciic) and here he was very $uch the Ilatonist-. These

contradictory and conlicting tendencies could not %e clariied within his syste$. They are oten *uxtaposed, un$ediated, contradictory and unreconciled. !n conse#uence, the ulti$ate apparent-

synthesis had perorce to turn to the past rather than the uture. 486 !t is no wonder that ro$ very

early on %ourgeois science chose to dwell on these aspects o Hegel. 1s a result the revolutionarycore o his thought %eca$e al$ost totally o%scure even or Marxists.

1 conceptual $ythology always points to the ailure to understand a unda$ental condition o

hu$an existence, one whose eects cannot %e warded o. This ailure to penetrate the o%*ect is

expressed intellectually in ter$s o transcendental orces which construct and shape reality, therelations %etween o%*ects, our relations with the$ and their transor$ations in the course o

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 13/71

history in a $ythological ashion. 'y recognising that 2the production and reproduction o real

lie is- in the last resort the decisive actor in history3, 48D6 Marx and ngels gained a vantage+

 point ro$ which they could settle accounts with all $ythologies. Hegel)s a%solute spirit was thelast o these grandiose $ythological sche$es. !t already contained the totality and its $ove$ent,

even though it was unaware o its real character. Thus in historical $aterialis$ reason 2which

has always existed though not always in a rational or$3,49E6

 achieved that (rational) or$ %ydiscovering its real su%stratu$, the %asis ro$ which hu$an lie will really %e a%le to %eco$e

conscious o itsel. This co$pleted the progra$$e o Hegel)s philosophy o history, even though

at the cost o the destruction o his syste$. !n contrast to nature in which, as Hegel e$phasises,4956 2change goes in a circle, repeating the sa$e thing3, change in history takes place 2in the

concept as well as on the surace. !t is the concept itsel which is corrected.3

5

The pre$ise o dialectical $aterialis$ is, we recall 2!t is not $en)s consciousness that

deter$ines their existence, %ut on the contrary, their social existence that deter$ines their

consciousness.3 0nly in the context sketched a%ove can this pre$ise point %eyond $ere theoryand %eco$e a #uestion o praxis. 0nly when the core o existence stands revealed as a social

 process can existence %e seen as the product, al%eit the hitherto unconscious product, o hu$anactivity. This activity will %e seen in its turn as the ele$ent crucial or the transor$ation o

existence. Man inds hi$sel conronted %y purely natural relations or social or$s $ystiied into

natural relations. They appear to %e ixed, co$plete and i$$uta%le entities which can %e$anipulated and even co$prehended, %ut never overthrown. 'ut also this situation creates the

 possi%ility o praxis in the individual consciousness. Iraxis %eco$es the or$ o action

appropriate to the isolated individual, it %eco$es his ethics. =euer%ach)s atte$pt to supersede

Hegel oundered on this ree like the Ger$an idealists, and to a $uch greater extent than Hegel,he stopped short at the isolated individual o (civil society).

Marx urged us to understand (the sensuous world), the o%*ect, reality, as hu$an sensuous

activity. 4986 This $eans that $an $ust %eco$e conscious o hi$sel as a social %eing, assi$ultaneously the su%*ect and o%*ect o the socio+historical process. !n eudal society $an could

not yet see hi$sel as a social %eing %ecause his social relations were still $ainly natural. "ociety

was ar too unorganised and had ar too little control over the totality o relations %etween $en

or it to appear to consciousness as the reality o $an. The #uestion o the structure and unity oeudal society cannot %e considered in any detail here.- 'ourgeois society carried out the process

o socialising society. Capitalis$ destroyed %oth the spatio+te$poral %arriers %etween dierent

lands and territories and also the legal partitions %etween the dierent (estates) )t*nde-. !n itsuniverse there is a or$al e#uality or all $en; the econo$ic relations that directly deter$ined

the $eta%olic exchange %etween $en and nature progressively disappear. Man %eco$es, in the

true sense o the word, a social %eing. "ociety. %eco$es the reality or $an.

Thus the recognition that society is reality %eco$es possi%le only under capitalis$, in %ourgeoissociety. 'ut the class which carried out this revolution did so without consciousness o its

unction; the social orces it unleashed, the very orces that carried it to supre$acy see$ed to %e

opposed to it like a second nature, %ut a $ore soulless, i$penetra%le nature than eudalis$ everwas. 4996 !t was necessary or the proletariat to %e %orn or social reality to %eco$e ully

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 14/71

conscious. The reason or this is that the discovery o the class+outlook o the proletariat

 provided a vantage point ro$ which to survey the whole o society. 7ith the e$ergence o

historical $aterialis$ there arose the theory o the 2conditions or the li%eration o the proletariat3 and the doctrine o reality understood as the total process o social evolution. This

was only possi%le %ecause or the proletariat the total knowledge o its class+situation was a vital

necessity, a $atter o lie and death; %ecause its class situation %eco$es co$prehensi%le only ithe whole o society can %e understood; and %ecause this understanding is the inescapa%le

 precondition o its actions. Thus the unity o theory and practice is only the reverse side o the

social and historical position o the proletariat. =ro$ its own point o view sel+knowledgecoincides with knowledge o the whole so that the proletariat is at one and the sa$e ti$e the

su%*ect and o%*ect o its own knowledge.

The $ission o raising hu$anity to a higher level is %ased, as Hegel rightly o%served 49:6 

although he was still concerned with nations-, on the act that these 2stages o evolution exist asi$mediate, natural, principles” and it devolves upon every nation i.e. class- 2endowed with

such a natural principle to put it into practice.3 Marx concretises this idea with great clarity %y

applying it to social develop$ent

49>6

2! socialist writers attri%ute this world+historical role to the proletariat it is not %ecause they %elieve ... that the proletariat are gods. =ar ro$ it. The proletariat can and $ust li%erate itsel

 %ecause when the proletariat is ully developed, its hu$anity and even the appearance o its

hu$anity has %eco$e totally a%stract; %ecause in the conditions o its lie all the conditions olie o conte$porary society ind their $ost inhu$an consu$$ation; %ecause in the proletariat

$an is lost to hi$sel %ut at the sa$e ti$e he has ac#uired a theoretical consciousness o this

loss, and is driven %y the a%solutely i$perious dictates o his $isery / the practical expression o 

this necessity / which can no longer %e ignored or whitewashed, to re%el against this inhu$anity.However, the proletariat cannot li%erate itsel without destroying the conditions o its own lie.

'ut it cannot do that without destroying all the inhu$an conditions o lie in conte$porarysociety which exist in the proletariat in a concentrated or$.3

Thus the essence o the $ethod o historical $aterialis$ is insepara%le ro$ the (practical and

critical) activity o the proletariat %oth are aspects o the sa$e process o social evolution. "o,

too, the knowledge o reality provided %y the dialectical $ethod is likewise insepara%le ro$ the

class standpoint o the proletariat. The #uestion raised %y the 1ustrian Marxists o the$ethodological separation o the (pure) science o Marxis$ ro$ socialis$ is a pseudo+pro%le$.49?6 =or, the Marxist $ethod, the dialectical $aterialist knowledge o reality, can arise only ro$

the point o view o a class, ro$ the point o view o the struggle o the proletariat. To a%andonthis point o view is to $ove away ro$ historical $aterialis$, *ust as to adopt it leads directly

into the thick o the struggle o the proletariat.

Historical $aterialis$ grows out o the 2i$$ediate, natural3 lie+principle o the proletariat; it

$eans the ac#uisition o total knowledge o reality ro$ this one point o view. 'ut it does notollow ro$ this that this knowledge or this $ethodological attitude is the inherent or natural

 possession o the proletariat as a class let alone o proletarian individuals-. 0n the contrary. !t is

true that the proletariat is the conscious su%*ect o total social reality. 'ut the conscious su%*ect isnot deined here as in ant, where (su%*ect) is deined as that which can never %e an o%*ect. The

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 15/71

(su%*ect) here is not a detached spectator o the process. The proletariat is $ore than *ust the

active and passive part o this process the rise and evolution o its knowledge and its actual rise

and evolution in the course o history are *ust the two dierent sides o the sa$e real process. !tis not si$ply the case that the working class arose in the course o spontaneous, unconscious

actions %orn o i$$ediate, direct despair the Luddite destruction o $achines can serve as a

 pri$itive illustration o this-, and then advanced gradually through incessant social struggle tothe point where it 2or$ed itsel into a class.3 'ut it is no less true that proletarian consciousness

o social reality, o its own class situation, o its own historical vocation and the $aterialist view

o history are all products o this sel+sa$e process o evolution which historical $aterialis$understands ade#uately and or what it really is or the irst ti$e in history.

Thus the Marxist $ethod is e#ually as $uch the product o class warare as any other political or 

econo$ic product. !n the sa$e way, the evolution o the proletariat relects the inner structure o

the society which it was the irst to understand. 2!ts result, thereore, appears *ust as constantly presupposed %y it as its presuppositions appear as its results.3 49B6 The idea o totality which we

have co$e to recognise as the presupposition necessary to co$prehend reality is the product o

history in a dou%le sense.

=irst, historical $aterialis$ %eca$e a or$al, o%*ective possi%ility only %ecause econo$icactors created the proletariat, %ecause the proletariat did e$erge i.e. at a particular stage o

historical develop$ent-, and %ecause the su%*ect and o%*ect o the knowledge o social reality

were transor$ed. "econd, this or$al possi%ility %eca$e a real one only in the course o theevolution o the proletariat. ! the $eaning o history is to %e ound in the process o history itsel 

and not, as or$erly, in a transcendental, $ythological or ethical $eaning oisted on to

recalcitrant $aterial, this presupposes a proletariat with a relatively advanced awareness o its

own position, i.e. a relatively advanced proletariat, and, thereore, a long preceding period oevolution. The path taken %y this evolution leads ro$ utopia to the knowledge o reality; ro$

transcendental goals ixed %y the irst great leaders o the workers) $ove$ent to the clear perception %y the Co$$une o 5B5 that the working+class has 2no ideals to realise3, %ut wishesonly 2to li%erate the ele$ents o the new society.3 !t is the path leading ro$ the 2class opposed

to capitalis$3 to the class 2or itsel.3

"een in this light the revisionist separation o $ove$ent and ulti$ate goal represents a

regression to the $ost pri$itive stage o the working+class $ove$ent. =or the ulti$ate goal isnot a (state o the uture) awaiting the proletariat so$ewhere independent o the $ove$ent and

the path leading up to it. !t is not a condition which can %e happily orgotten in the stress o daily

lie and recalled only in "unday ser$ons as a stirring contrast to workaday cares. Jor is it a(duty), an (idea) designed to regulate the (real) process. The ulti$ate goal is rather that relationto the totality +to the whole o society seen as a process-, through which every aspect o the

struggle ac#uires its revolutionary signiicance. This relation inor$s every aspect in its si$pleand so%er ordinariness, %ut only consciousness $akes it real and so coners reality on the day+to+

day struggle %y $aniesting its relation to the whole. Thus it elevates $ere existence to reality.

o not let us orget either that every atte$pt to rescue the (ulti$ate goal) or the (essence) o the

 proletariat ro$ every i$pure contact with / capitalist+ existence leads ulti$ately to the sa$ere$oteness ro$ reality, ro$ (practical, critical activity) and to the sa$e relapse into the utopian

dualis$ o su%*ect and o%*ect, o theory and practice to which @evisionis$ has succu$%ed. 496

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 16/71

The practical danger o every such dualis$ shows itsel in the loss o any directive or action. 1s

soon as you a%andon the ground o reality that has %een con#uered and recon#uered %y

dialectical $aterialis$, as soon as you decide to re$ain on the (natural) ground o existence, othe e$pirical in its stark, naked %rutality, you create a gul %etween the su%*ect o an action and

the $ilieu o the (acts) in which the action unolds so that they stand opposed to each other as

harsh, irreconcila%le principles. !t then %eco$es i$possi%le to i$pose the su%*ective will, wish or decision upon the acts or to discover in the$ any directive or action. 1 situation in which the

(acts) speak out un$istaka%ly or or against a deinite course o action has never existed, and

neither can or will exist. The $ore conscientiously the acts are explored / in their isolation, i.e.in their un$ediated relations / the less co$pellingly will they point in any one direction. !t is

sel+evident that a $erely su%*ective decision will %e shattered %y the pressure o

unco$prehended acts acting auto$atically (according to laws).

Thus dialectical $aterialis$ is seen to oer the only approach to reality which can give action adirection. The sel+knowledge, %oth su%*ective and o%*ective, o the proletariat at a given point in

its evolution is at the sa$e ti$e knowledge o the stage o develop$ent achieved %y the whole

society. The acts no longer appear strange when they are co$prehended in their coherent reality,in the relation o all partial aspects to their inherent, %ut hitherto unelucidated roots in the whole

we then perceive the tendencies which strive towards the centre o reality, to what we are wont to

call the ulti$ate goal. This ulti$ate goal is not an a%stract ideal opposed to the process, %ut an

aspect o truth and reality. !t is the concrete $eaning o each stage reached and an integral part o the concrete $o$ent. 'ecause o this, to co$prehend it is to recognise the direction taken

unconsciously- %y events and tendencies towards the totality. !t is to know the direction that

deter$ines concretely the correct course o action at any given $o$ent / in ter$s o the interesto the total process, viF. the e$ancipation o the proletariat.

However, the evolution o society constantly heightens the tension %etween the partial aspects

and the whole. Kust %ecause the inherent $eaning o reality shines orth with an ever $oreresplendent light, the $eaning o the process is e$%edded ever $ore deeply in day+to+dayevents, and totality per$eates the spatio+te$poral character o pheno$ena. The path to

consciousness throughout the course o history does not %eco$e s$oother %ut on the contrary

ever $ore arduous and exacting. =or this reason the task o orthodox Marxis$, its victory over@evisionis$ and utopianis$ can never $ean the deeat, once and or all, o alse tendencies. !t is

an ever+renewed struggle against the insidious eects o %ourgeois ideology on the thought o the

 proletariat. Marxist orthodoxy is no guardian o traditions, it is the eternally vigilant prophet proclai$ing the relation %etween the tasks o the i$$ediate present and the totality o the

historical process. Hence the words o the "ommunist aniesto on the tasks o orthodoxy and o 

its representatives, the Co$$unists, have lost neither their relevance nor their value

2The Co$$unists are distinguished ro$ the other working+class parties by this only 5. !n thenational struggles o the proletarians o the dierent countries, they point out and %ring to the

ront the co$$on interests o the entire proletariat, independent o nationality. 8. !n the various

stages o develop$ent which the struggle o the working class against the %ourgeoisie has to pass

through, they always and everywhere represent the interests o the movement as a whole.3

 arch //.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 17/71

next section

Georg Lukacs !nternet 1rchive

NOTES

5. !ntroduction to the Criti#ue o Hegel)s Ihilosophy o @ight , p. >8.

8. 0bid., p. >:.

9. 1achlass !, pp. 98+9. 4"orrespondence o 2346.

:. 0bid ., p. 9D. "ee also the essay on Class Consciousness.

>. =euer%ach and the nd o Classical Ger$an Ihilosophy.

?. 1 Contri%ution to the Criti#ue o Iolitical cono$y, $y italics-. !t is o the irst i$portance

to realise that the $ethod is li$ited here to the real$s o history and society. The

$isunderstandings that arise ro$ ngels) account o dialectics can in the $ain %e put down to

the act that ngels / ollowing Hegel)s $istaken lead / extended the $ethod to apply also tonature. However, the crucial deter$inants o dialectics / the interaction o su%*ect and o%*ect, the

unity o theory and practice, the historical changes in the reality underlying the categories as theroot cause o changes in thought, etc. / are a%sent ro$ our knowledge o nature. nortunatelyit is not possi%le to undertake a detailed analysis o these #uestions here.

B. 0bid ., pp. 8D+D.

. !ntroduction to The Class "truggles in =rance . 'ut it $ust %e %orne in $ind that (scientiic

exactitude) presupposes that the ele$ents re$ain (constant). This had %een postulated as ar %ack as Galileo.

D. "apital !!!, p. 8E>. "i$ilarly also pp. :B+ and 9EB. The distinction %etween existence which

is divided into appearance, pheno$enon and essence- and reality derives ro$ Hegel)s 5ogic. !tis unortunately not possi%le here to discuss the degree to which the conceptual ra$ework o"apital is %ased on these distinctions. "i$ilarly, the distinction %etween idea orstellung- and

concept 'egri- is also to %e ound in Hegel.

5E. "apital !!!, p. BDB.

55. 1 Contri%ution to Iolitical cono$y, p. 8D9.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 18/71

58. 0bid ., p. 8B9. The category o relective connection also derives ro$ Hegel)s 5ogic. 4"ee

xplanatory Jotes or this concept6.

59. The Ioverty o Ihilosophy, p. 589.

5:. 7e would draw the attention o readers with a greater interest in #uestions o $ethodology tothe act that in Hegel)s logic, too, the relation o the parts to the whole or$s the dialectical

transition ro$ existence to reality. !t $ust %e noted in this context that the #uestion o the

relation o internal and external also treated there is likewise concerned with the pro%le$ ototality. Hegel, 6er'e !, pp. 5>? .

5>. ar!, Theorien über den ehrwert, "tuttgart, 5DE>, !!, !!, pp. 9E>+D.

5?. ar!istische $robleme, p. BB.

5B. Theorien über den ehrvert, !!!, pp. >> and D9+:.

5. The Ioverty o Ihilosophy, pp. 589+:.

5D. 1 Contri%ution to Iolitical cono$y, pp. 8D5+8.

8E. The very su%tle nature o Cunow)s opportunis$ can %e o%served %y the way in which /despite his thorough knowledge o Marx)s works / he su%stitutes the word (su$) or the concept

o the whole totality- thus eli$inating every dialectical relation. C. Die  ar!sche 7eschichts-7esellschats- und )taatstheorie, 'erlin, 5D8D, !!, pp. 5>>+B.

85. 7age La%our and Capital.

88. Capital !, p. >?.

89. C. the essay on @eiication and the Consciousness o the Iroletariat.

8:. Capital !, p. >B.

8>. Hegel, The Ihilosophy o @ight, trans. T. M. nox, 0xord, 5D:8, p. 89.

8?. 1achlass !!, p. 5B. 4The Holy =a$ily, Chapter ?6

8B. !t co$es as no surprise that at the very point where Marx radically departs ro$ Hegel,Cunow should atte$pt to correct Marx %y appealing to Hegel as seen through antian

spectacles. To Marx)s purely historical view o the state he opposes the Hegelian state as (an

eternal value). !ts (errors) are to %e set aside as nothing $ore than (historical $atters) which do

not (deter$ine the nature, the ate and the o%*ectives o the state). =or Cunow, Marx is inerior toHegel on this point %ecause he (regards the #uestion politically and not ro$ the standpoint o

the sociologist). Cunow, op. cit. p. 9E. !t is evident that all Marx)s eorts to overco$e Hegelian

 philosophy $ight never have existed in the eyes o the opportunists. ! they do not return to

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 19/71

vulgar $aterialis$ or to ant they use the reactionary ele$ents o Hegel)s philosophy o the

state to erase revolutionary dialectics ro$ Marxis$, so as to provide an intellectual

i$$ortalisation o %ourgeois society.

8. Hegel)s attitude towards national econo$y is highly signiicant in this context. Ihilosophy

o @ight, N 5D.- He clearly sees that the pro%le$ o chance and necessity is unda$ental to it$ethodologically very like ngels 8rigin o the Family ".7. !!, p. 8D9 and Feuerbach, etc.

".7. !!, p. 9>:-. 'ut he is una%le to see the crucial i$portance o the $aterial reality underlyingthe econo$y, viF. the relation o $en to each other; it re$ains or hi$ no $ore than an (ar%itrary

chaos) and its laws are thought to %e (si$ilar to those o the planetary syste$). 0bid . N. 5D.

8D. ngels, Letter to K. 'loch, 85 "epte$%er 5DE.

9E. 1achlass !, p. 95. 4Correspondence with @uge 5:9-6.

95. The Ihilosophy o History.

98. Theses on =euer%ach.

99. "ee the essay Class Consciousness or an explanation o this situation.

9:. The Ihilosophy o @ight, N 9:?+B.

9>. 1achlass !!, p. 599. 4The Holy =a$ily, Chapter :6.

9?. Hilerding, Finan9'apital, pp. !!!+!O.

9B. Capital !!!.

9. C. Pinoviev)s pole$ics against Guesde and his attitude to the war in "tuttgart. 7egen den)trom, pp. :BE+5. Likewise Lenin)s %ook, 2Let+7ing3 Co$$unis$ / an !nantile isorder.

 

Ta%le o Contents Q Lukacs 1rchive 

Georg LukRcs 5D8E

The Moral Mission of the Communist Party

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 20/71

=irst Iu%lished in :ommunismus, 5S5?+5B, 5D8E;

"ource Georg LukRcs. $olitical 6ritings, 5D5D+5D8D;

Iu%lished J.L.'. 5DB8;dited %y @odney Livingstone;

Transcri%ed %y 'rian @eid.

1

Like Lenin)s writings this latest pa$phlet deserves to %e studied $ost careully all co$$unists.He reveals yet again his #uite extraordinary a%ility to grasp what is decisively new a%out a new

 pheno$enon in the develop$ent o the proletariat; his a%ility to co$prehend its very essence and

to $ake it co$prehensi%le in the $ost concrete way. 7hereas his earlier writings were largely o 

a pole$ical nature, concerned $ainly to exa$ine the ighting organiFations o the proletariatpri$arily the state-, this one deals with the present develop$ent o the e$%ryonic new society.

Kust as the capitalist or$ o production, with its la%our discipline dictated %y econo$icco$pulsion hunger-, was superior to the naked violence o serdo$, so the ree cooperation oree hu$an %eings in the new society / even in the ield o productivity / will ar surpass

capitalis$. !t is precisely in this respect that the social+de$ocratic deeatists o the world

revolution are $ost skeptical. They point to the slackening o la%our discipline, the all in productivity / in short, to the inevita%le conco$itants o the disintegrating capitalist econo$ic

syste$. 1nd with an i$patience and intolerance $atched in intensity only %y their patience and

tolerance towards capitalis$ they point out that these things did not change immediately in"oviet @ussia. Lack o raw $aterials, internal struggles and organiFational diiculties count as

excuses in their view only or capitalist states; their line is that a proletarian social order ought to

$ean the internal external transor$ation o all conditions, an all+round i$prove$ent in the

situation, ro$ the very irst $o$ent that that order is %orn. Genuine revolutionaries, and a%oveall Lenin, distinguish the$selves ro$ such petty+%ourgeois utopianis$ %y their lack o illusions.

They know what can %e expected, not only o an econo$y ruined in the 7orld 7ar, %ut also /

and a%ove all / o human beings who, under capitalis$, h %een spiritually corrupted anddepraved and indoctrinated with egois$. However, reedo$ ro$ illusions never leads the true

revolutionary to lose heart or to despair; his understanding o the situation as it really is serves

rather to strengthen his aith in the world+historical $ission o the proletariat. This aith cannever %e shaken, no $atter how long it takes to realiFe it, no $atter how oten it is %eset %y

adverse circu$stances. !t accepts all these disruptions and o%structions, %ut never allows the$ to

distract hi$ ro$ his goal and the indications o its i$$inence.

The co$$unist "aturdays, the $o%iliFation to work which the @ussian Co$$unist Iarty hastaken upon itsel, have %een discussed re#uently and ro$ $any dierent points o view.

nderstanda%ly, the $ain e$phasis has always %een put on their actual and possi%le econo$ic

conse#uences. 'ut however i$portant these $ay %e, the co$$unist "aturdays and the possi%ilityand or$ o their origins are signiicant in a urther sense, one which takes us ar %eyond their

i$$ediate econo$ic conse#uences. (The enor$ous historical signiicance o the co$$unist

"aturdays is that they reveal to us the purposeul and voluntary initiative o the workers in the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 21/71

develop$ent o la%our productivity, in the transition to the new work discipline, in the creation

o socialist conditions in the econo$y and in lie generally.)

The non+@ussian co$$unist parties are re#uently criticiFed or i$itating the @ussian exa$pletoo slavishly in their actions and their de$ands. !t see$s to $e that in several %y no $eans

inessential- respects, the exact opposite is the case the uropean co$$unist parties either cannotor will not exa$ine the true sources o the @ussian $ove$ent)s strength / and even when so$e

o the lessons strike ho$e they cannot raise the necessary strength to translate the$ into action.

The co$$unist "aturdays, as the irst seeds o the transition ro$ a capitalist to a socialist

econo$ic order, as the starting+point or the (leap ro$ the real$ o necessity into the real$ o

reedo$), are in no sense institutional measures o the )oviet government, but moral actions othe "ommunist $arty. 1nd it is precisely this vital and decisive aspect o the reality o the

@ussian Co$$unist Iarty which has %een least appreciated %y its sister parties, who, ar ro$

copying its exa$ple, have hardly ever drawn the correct and necessary conclusions ro$ its

achieve$ents.

2

! there is one co$$onplace which cannot %e too strongly e$phasiFed, it is that the communist party is the organi9ational e!pression o the revolutionary will o the proletariat. !t is thereore %y no $eans %ound to e$%race the whole o the proletariat ro$ the very outset; as the conscious

leader o the revolution, as the e$%odi$ent o the revolutionary idea, its task is rather to unite

the $ost conscious sections, the vanguard, the really revolutionary and ully class+consciousworkers. The revolution itsel is %rought a%out necessarily %y the natural laws governing the

econo$ic orces. The duty and the $ission o co$$unist parties everywhere is to supply the

revolutionary $ove$ent / which to a large extent arises independently o the$ / with a

direction and a goal and to lead the ele$ental out%reaks sparked o %y the collapse o thecapitalist econo$ic order on to the only via%le path o salvation, on to the dictatorship o the

 proletariat.

The old parties were co$pro$ise co$%inations, heterogeneous collections o individuals, andconse#uently very #uickly %eca$e %ureaucratiFed, very #uickly gave rise to an aristocracy o

 party oicers and su%alterns who were cut o ro$ the $asses. The new co$$unist parties, on

the other hand, should represent the purest expression o the revolutionary class struggle, thetranscending o %ourgeois society. However, the transition ro$ the old society to the new

i$plies, not merely an economic and institutional, but also and at the same time a moraltransormation. Let there %e no $isunderstanding nothing is urther ro$ our thoughts than the

 petty+%ourgeois utopianis$ o those who ondly i$agine that social change can only %e %roughta%out through an inner transor$ation o hu$an %eings. Jot the least indication that this is a

 petty+%ourgeois notion is the act that its proponents / whether consciously or not / there%y

relegate the transor$ation o society to so$e di$ and distant point in the ti$eless uture.- 0nthe contrary, we insist that the transition ro$ the old to the new society is a necessary

conse#uence o o%*ective econo$ic orces and laws. =or all its o%*ective necessity, however, this

transition is precisely the transition ro$ %ondage and reiication to reedo$ and hu$anity. =orthat reason reedom cannot be regarded simply as a, ruit, a result o historical development.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 22/71

There must arise in that development a moment where reedom itsel becomes one o the driving orces. !ts signiicance as a driving orce $ust constantly increase until the ti$e co$es when it

takes over co$pletely the leadership o a society which has now %eco$e hu$an, when($ankind)s pre+history) co$es to an end and its true history is a%le to %egin.

The %eginning o this phase see$s, in our view, to coincide with the rise o revolutionaryconsciousness, with the ounding o the co$$unist parties. =or every Co$$unist Iarty / as long

as it does not $erely stand in opposition to %ourgeois society, %ut actively e$%odies its negation < represents ar $ore than *ust the antithesis o the old social+de$ocratic parties. !t signiies in

act the %eginning o their destruction and disappearance. The greatest tragedy o the workers)

$ove$ent has always %een its ina%ility to tear itsel co$pletely ree ro$ the ideological $atrixo capitalis$. The old social+de$ocratic parties have never even seriously tried to do so they

have re$ained essentially %ourgeois parties, with all the acco$panying characteristics

co$pro$ise, vote+catching, cheap+*ack de$agogy, intrigue, social cli$%ing and %ureaucracy.Hence coalitions with %ourgeois parties are not $erely the conse#uence o o%*ective, political

necessity; they spring ro$ the inner structure, the real essence o the social+de$ocratic parties.

!t is thereore easy to understand why, in the truly revolutionary, al%eit not ully consciousele$ents o the workers) $ove$ent, voices should have $ade the$selves heard denouncing, not

only the corrupt petty+%ourgeois and counter+revolutionary nature o the old parties, but thewhole idea o parties as such. 0ne o the chie reasons or the e$ergence and the attraction o

syndicalis$ is dou%tless to %e ound in the ethical rejection o the old parties.

The @ussian Co$$unist Iarty never succu$%ed to these dangers. !nstead o the usual dile$$a / 

old style party or syndicalis$, %ureaucratic organiFation or destruction o the party / they

devised a clear (tertiu$ datur), a third approach. !t is this third approach whose conse#uences we

can now discern in every acet o the @ussian @evolution. "o ar, however, we have %een toocowardly and too idle to recogniFe its basis and incorporate it as a driving orce into our own

$ove$ents.

3

The %asis o this power o the "oviet Co$$unist Iarty is to %e ound, irst, in its internal

organiFation; secondly, in the way in which it conceives its task and $ission; and thirdly as a

conse#uence o the irst two- in the $anner o its eect upon its $e$%ers. !n contrast to the oldsocial+de$ocratic parties and $ost non+@ussian co$$unist parties, it is a closed, not an open

 party. Jot only does it not try to recruit any%ody and every%ody to its ranks one o the chie

causes o corruption and co$pro$ise-; it does not even accept all those who want to *oin. "uch people are sited through the ranks o the so+called sy$pathiFers =riends o the Co$$unists)-,

o who$ those who $eet the moral de$ands $ade o a @ussian co$$unist are ad$itted to the party itsel. The party, however, is %y no $eans concerned with $erely increasing its$e$%ership, %ut rather with the #uality o those who re$ain in its ranks. =or this reason the

 party uses every opportunity arising ro$ the tre$endous exertions o the @evolution to purge itsran's. = The war $o%iliFation o the co$$unists,) says Lenin, (helped us in this respect the

cowards and %lackguards turned their %acks on the party. That sort o reduction in the nu$%er o$e$%ers represents a signiicant growth in the strength and reputation o the party. 7e should

continue the purge %y exploiting the initiative o the 2co$$unist "aturdays.3) This purging o the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 23/71

 party is thereore %ased on (a constant stepping-up o demands in relation to real co$$unist

achieve$ents).

The internal construction o the @ussian Co$$unist Iarty takes us on to the second aspect o our discussion, the $ission o the party in the revolution. The Co$$unist Iarty, as the vanguard o

the revolution, should always %e at least one step ahead o the develop$ent o the $asses. *ust asthe Co$$unist Iarty was already conscious o the necessity o revolution at a ti$e when the

 %road $asses elt at $ost a vague dissatisaction with their situation, so consciousness o thereal$ o reedo$ ought already to %e a vital actor in the various co$$unist parties and a

decisive inluence on their actions, particularly i the $asses who ollow the$ are not yet in a

 position to tear the$selves ree ideologically ro$ the corrupt $atrix o capitalis$. "uch a roleor the Co$$unist Iarty does not o course ac#uire co$plete actuality until the setting+up o the

govern$ent o "oviets. =or once the proletariat has esta%lished its power institutionally,everything depends on whether the spirit which inor$s those soviets is really the spirit oco$$unis$, o the new hu$anity which is now e$erging, or *ust a new disguise or the old

society. 0nly the Co$$unist Iarty can e$%ody this cleansing, puriying and dyna$ic principle.

"ince the transor$ation in or$s o govern$ent cannot possi%ly %ring a%out an innertransor$ation in hu$an %eings at the sa$e ti$e, it is inevita%le that all the evil aspects o

capitalist society %ureaucracy, corruption, and so on- will ind their way into "oviet institutions.

There is a grave danger that these institutions will degenerate or ossiy even %eore they have had

a chance to develop properly. This where the Co$$unist Iarty $ust intervene as critic, $odel, %ulwark, organiFer and reor$er. !t is the only %ody which is in a position to do so.456

Having educated the proletariat or revolution, then, the Co$$unist Iarty $ust now educate the

whole o hu$anity in reedo$ and sel+discipline. 'ut it can only ulil this $ission i it practises

its educational work a$ong its $e$%ers ro$ the very %eginning. !t would, however, %eco$pletely un+Marxist and non+dialectical thinking to atte$pt to separate orci%ly the two

develop$ental phases $entioned a%ove. 0n the contrary, their relationship is one o constant$utual interpenetration, and no one can ever deter$ine exactly where the one %egins and theother ends. The hu$an ideal o the real$ o reedo$ $ust thereore %e a conscious principle

governing the actions and $otivating the lives o all co$$unist parties ro$ the very $o$ent o

their inception. 0rganiFational or$s, raising consciousness %y $eans o education and propaganda / these are crucial and essential $eans. 'ut they are ar ro$ the only ones. Most

i$portant / indeed, in the last analysis, the decisive actor / is what communists themselvesachieve as human beings.

The Co$$unist Iarty $ust %e the pri$ary incarnation o the real$ o reedo$; a%ove all, thespirit o co$radeliness, o true solidarity, and o sel+sacriice $ust govern everything it does. !

it cannot achieve this, or i it does not at least exert itsel seriously to put such ideals into

 practice, the Co$$unist Iarty will no longer %e distinguisha%le ro$ the other parties, except %yvirtue o its progra$$e. There is even the danger that this un%ridgea%le gul which separates it

 progra$$atically ro$ the opportunists and the waverers will gradually %eco$e o%scured, with

the result that it could soon %e nothing $ore than the (extre$e let wing) o the (workers)

 parties). That in turn would present a urther, $ore i$$ediate danger already posed inaccentuated or$ %y the rhetorical recognition o the Third !nternational %y the parties o the

centre- na$ely, that the #ualitative distinction %etween the co$$unists and the other parties

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 24/71

would degenerate into a $erely #uantitative one and in ti$e even disappear altogether. The less a

Co$$unist Iarty puts its ideals into practice %oth organiFationally and spiritually, the less a%le it

will %e, not only to counter eectively this widespread inclination to co$pro$ise, %ut also toeducate the unconscious %ut really revolutionary ele$ents syndicalists, anarchists- to %eco$e

true co$$unists.

Co$pro$ise and disintegration spring ro$ the sa$e source the inade#uate inner transor$ation

o co$$unists the$selves. The $ore the co$$unists and with and through the$ theCo$$unist Iarty- have cleansed the$selves o all the dross o capitalist, social+de$ocratic party

lie, such as %ureaucracy, intrigues, social cli$%ing, etc., the $ore their party solidarity turns into

true co$radeship and spiritual solidarity / the %etter a%le they will %e to ulil their $ission.Then and only then will they %e in a position to gather revolutionary orces, strengthen the

irresolute, rouse the unconscious to consciousness / and push aside and destroy once and or all

the scoundrels and the opportunists. The revolutionary period which we now ace will %e rich in protracted and diicult struggles; it will provide us with countless opportunities or this sel+

education. 0ur @ussian co$rades provide the $ost instructive exa$ple, %oth in organiFational

and hu$an ter$s, that we could wish or. !t is high ti$e we began to e$ulate their exa$ple inthis country, too.

NOTES

5. C. the article %y Co$rade ladi$ir "orin, (The Co$$unist Iarty and "oviet !nstitutions), in

 :ommunismus, 5S+D 5D8E-, pp. 89.

 

Georg LukRcs 1rchive 

George LukRcs 5D88

Tagore’s Gandhi Novel

evie! o" a#indranath Tagore$ The %ome and the World

"ource George LukRcs, %ssays and &eviews, Merlin Iress, London 5D9;

=irst Iu%lished in the 'erlin periodical, Die rote Fahne, in 5D88;

Transcri%ed %y Hasan.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 25/71

Tagore)s enor$ous cele%rity a$ong Ger$any)s (intellectual elite) is one o the cultural scandals

occurring with ever greater intensity again and again U a typical sign o the total cultural

dissolution acing this (intellectual elite). =or such cele%rity indicates the co$plete loss o the olda%ility to distinguish %etween the genuine article and the ake.

Tagore hi$sel is U as i$aginative writer and as thinker U a wholly insigniicant igure. Hiscreative powers are non+existent; his characters pale stereotypes; his stories thread%are and

uninteresting; and his sensi%ility is $eagre, insu%stantial. He survives %y stirring scraps o thepanishads and the 'hagavad+Gita into his works a$id the sluggish low o his own tediousness

 U and %ecause the conte$porary Ger$an reader)s instinct has %eco$e so unsure that he can no

longer recognise the dierence %etween the text and #uotations. 1s a result these scanty letoversro$ !ndian philosophy do not annihilate the unworthy $aterial which ra$es the$; on the

contrary, they give it an esoteric sanction o proundity and o wisdo$ ro$ aar. That is not

surprising. 7hen Ger$any)s educated pu%lic is acco$$odating itsel $ore and $ore tointellectual su%stitutes, when it is incapa%le o grasping the dierence %etween "pangler and

classical philosophy, %etween wers and Ho$ann or Ioe and so orth, how is it to perceive this

dierence in the ar re$oter world o !ndiaA Tagore is the !ndian =renssen,

456

 who$ he aintlyrecalls in his unctuous tediousness, although his creative powers even all short o =renssen. 1ll

the sa$e, his great success has so$e signiicance as a sy$pto$ o the Ger$an $entality today.

1 possi%le response to this sharp re*ection o Tagore is to invoke an international a$e or rather,

a$e in 'ritain-. The nglish %ourgeoisie has reasons o its own or rewarding Mr. Tagore witha$e and riches the Jo%el IriFe- it is repaying its intellectual agent in the struggle against the

!ndian reedo$ $ove$ent. =or 'ritain, thereore, the scraps o (wisdo$) ro$ ancient !ndia, the

doctrine o total ac#uiescence and o the wickedness o violence U only, o course, when it

relates to the reedo$ $ove$ent U have a very concrete and palpa%le $eaning. The greaterTagore)s a$e and authority, the $ore eectively his pa$phlet can co$%at the reedo$ struggle

in his native country.

=or a pa$phlet U and one resorting to the lowest tools o li%el U is what Tagore)s novel is, inspite o its tediousness and want o spirit. These li%els see$ all the $ore repugnant to the

unpre*udiced reader the $ore they are steeped in unctuous (wisdo$) and the $ore slyly Mr.

Tagore atte$pts to conceal his i$potent hatred o the !ndian reedo$ ighters in a (proound)

 philosophy o the (universally hu$an).

The intellectual conlict in the novel is concerned with the #uestion o the use o violence. The

author portrays the %eginnings o the national $ove$ent the struggle to %oycott 'ritish goods,

to s#ueeFe the$ out o the !ndian $arket and to replace the$ with native products. 1nd Mr.

Tagore %roaches the weighty #uestion is the use o violence in this struggle $orally ad$issi%leAThe hypothesis is that !ndia is an oppressed, enslaved country, yet Mr. Tagore shows no interest

in this #uestion. He is, ater all, a philosopher, a $oralist only concerned with the (eternal truths).

Let the 'ritish co$e to ter$s as they wish and in their own way with the da$age done to theirsouls through their use o violence r. Tagore(s tas' is to save the 0ndians spiritually and to protect their souls ro$ the dangers posed %y the violence, deceit etc. with which they are

waging their struggle or reedo$. He writes 2Men who die or the truth are i$$ortal; and i awhole people dies or the truth it will achieve i$$ortality in the history o $ankind.)

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 26/71

This stance represents nothing less than the ideology o the eternal su%*ection o !ndia. 'ut

Tagore)s attitude is even $ore %latantly $aniest in the $anner in which he shapes this de$and

in the action and the characters o his novel. The $ove$ent which he depicts is a ro$antic$ove$ent or intellectuals. !t strongly re$inds us U without taking the analogy too ar, since

the social circu$stances are entirely dierent U o such $ove$ents as the Car%onari in !taly

and indeed, in certain aspects particularly the psychological aspects-, the Jarodniks in @ussia.@o$antic topianis$, ideological exaggeration and the crusading spirit are an essential part o

all these $ove$ents. 'ut this is only the starting point or Mr. Tagore)s li%ellous pa$phlet. He

turns this crusading ro$anticis$, whose typical representatives were without #uestion $otivated %y the purest idealis$ and sel+sacriice, into a lie o adventure and cri$e. His hero, a $inor

!ndian no%le who advocates the current doctrine, is destroyed %oth inwardly and outwardly %y

the rapacious excesses o such a (patriotic) cri$inal %and. His ho$e is destroyed. He hi$sel

alls in a %attle that was sparked o %y the unscrupulousness o the (patriots). He hi$sel issupposed, according to Mr. Tagore, to %e %y no $eans hostile to the national $ove$ent; on the

contrary, he even wants to pro$ote the nation)s industry. He experi$ents with native inventions

 U provided, though, that he does not pay or the$. He gives shelter to the patriots) leader, a

conte$pti%le caricature o GandhiV 'ut when the aair %eco$es too hot or hi$, he protectsevery%ody alicted %y the violence o the (patriots) with his own instru$ents o power and with

those o the 'ritish police.

This propagandistic, de$agogically one+sided stance renders the novel co$pletely worthlessro$ the artistic angle. The hero)s adversary is not a real adversary %ut a %ase adventurer who,

or instance, when he wheedles a large su$ o $oney out o the hero)s wie or national ends and

talks her into thet, does not hand the $oney over to the national $ove$ent %ut easts on thesight o the glea$ing pieces o gold. Jo wonder the $en and wo$en who$ he has led astray

turn away ro$ hi$ in disgust the $o$ent they see through hi$.

'ut Tagore)s creative powers do not even stretch to a decent pa$phlet. He lacks the i$aginationeven to calu$niate convincingly and eectively, as ostoyevsky, say, partly succeeded in doingin his counter+revolutionary novel (Iossessed). The (spiritual) aspect o his story, separated ro$

the nuggets o !ndian wisdo$ with which it is tricked out, is a petty %ourgeois yarn o the

shoddiest kind. lti$ately it %oils down to the (pro%le$) o the standing o the ($an o thehouse) how the wie o a (good and honest) $an is seduced %y a ro$antic adventurer, %ut then

sees through hi$ and returns to her hus%and in re$orse.

This %rie sa$ple will suice to give an i$pression o the (great $an) who$ Ger$an

intellectuals have treated like a prophet. To re%ut such totally dis$issive criticis$, o course, hisad$irers will point to his other, ($ore universal) writings. !n our view, however, the signiicance

o an intellectual trend is evident precisely ro$ what it can say a%out the $ost %urning

conte$porary #uestions Wi it presu$es to point the way in an age o conusion. !ndeed the valueor worthlessness o a theory or outlook and o those who proclai$ it- is evident precisely ro$

what it has to say to the people o that age in their suerings and their strivings. !t is diicult to

assess wisdo$ (in itsel) in the vacuu$ o pure theory and within the walls o an elegant salon-.

'ut it will reveal itsel the $o$ent that it co$es out with the clai$ to act as $en)s guide. Mr.Tagore has co$e out with that clai$ in this novel. 1s we noted, his (wisdo$) was put at the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 27/71

intellectual service o the 'ritish police. !s it necessary, thereore, to pay any closer attention to

the residue o this (wisdo$A

5. Gustav =renssen 5?9+5D:>-, a regional writer and parson o Holstein.

 

George LukRcs 1rchive 

Georg Lukacs 5D5D

Tactics and Ethics

=irst Iu%lished in Hungarian as Ta'ti'a is ethi'a, 'udapest, 5D5D;

"ource Georg LukRcs. Iolitical 7ritings, 5D5D+5D8D.

Iu%lished J.L.'. 5DB8;Translated %y @odney Livingstone;

Transcri%ed %y 1ndy 'lunden.

=or all parties and classes the position and signiicance o tactics in the ield o political action

dier greatly in accordance with the structure and historico+philosophical role peculiar to those

 parties and classes.

! we deine tactics as a $eans %y which politically active groups achieve their declared ai$s, asa link connecting ulti$ate o%*ective with reality, unda$ental dierences arise, depending on

whether the ulti$ate o%*ective is categoriFed as a $o$ent within the given social reality or as

one that transcends it. The principal dierence %etween the i$$anent and the transcendentulti$ate o%*ective is that the or$er accepts the existing legal order as a given principle which

necessarily and nor$atively deter$ines the scope o any action, whereas in the case o a socio+

transcendent o%*ective that legal order is seen as pure reality, as real power, to %e taken into

account or, at $ost, reasons o expediency. The (at $ost) needs special e$phasis, or ano%*ective like that o the =rench Legiti$ist @estoration, na$ely the acknowledg$ent, in any

sense whatever, o the legal order o the @evolution, was already tanta$ount to a co$pro$ise.

ven this exa$ple, however, shows that the various transcendent o%*ectives, conceived purely inter$s o a sociology which is totally a%stract and devoid o all values, are to %e regarded as %eing

on the sa$e level.

=or i the social order which is deined as the ulti$ate o%*ective already existed in the past, i it

were $erely a #uestion o reinstating a previous stage o develop$ent, then ignorance o the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 28/71

existing legal order represents only an apparent, and not a real, violation o the li$its o the

given legal orders one real legal order conronts another real legal order, the continuity o

develop$ent is not rigidly denied, and the $ost ar+reaching ai$ a$ounts $erely to cancellingan inter$ediate stage. very essentially revolutionary o%*ective, on the other hand, denies the

$oral raison d(>tre and the historico+philosophical appositeness o %oth present and past legal

orders; how ar U i at all U they are to %e taken into account is thereore an exclusively tactical#uestion.

'ecause, however, tactics ree the$selves in this way ro$ the nor$al li$its i$posed %y the

legal order, so$e new practical criterion has to %e discovered which will deter$ine the tactical

attitude. "ince the concept o expediency is a$%iguous, a corresponding distinction $ust %eesta%lished %etween an i$$ediate, concrete ai$ and an ulti$ate o%*ective still re$ote ro$ the

ground o reality. =or those classes and parties whose ulti$ate o%*ective has in act already %een

achieved, tactics will necessarily %e deter$ined %y the attaina%ility o the i$$ediate andconcrete ai$s; or the$, the gul which divides the i$$ediate and the ulti$ate goal, the conlicts

arising ro$ this duality, si$ply do not exist. Tactics here assu$e the or$ o legal &ealpoliti',

and it is no $ere chance that in those exceptional- cases where a conlict o this kind doese$erge as, or instance, in connection with war U these classes and parties practise the

shallowest and $ost catastrophic or$ o &ealpoliti'. They have no choice, or the existence o

their ulti$ate goal ad$its o no other course o action.

This contrast helps greatly to elucidate the tactics o the revolutionary classes and parties theirtactics are not deter$ined %y short+ter$ i$$ediately attaina%le advantages; indeed, they $ust

so$eti$es re*ect such advantages as endangering what is truly i$portant, the ulti$ate o%*ective.

'ut since the ulti$ate o%*ective has %een categoriFed, not as topia, %ut as reality which has tobe achieved, positing it a%ove and %eyond the i$$ediate advantage does not $ean a%stractingro$ reality or atte$pting to i$pose certain ideals on reality, %ut rather it entails the knowledge

and transor$ation into action o those orces already at work within social reality U thoseorces, that is, which are directed towards the realiFation o the ulti$ate o%*ective. 7ithout thisknowledge the tactics o every revolutionary class or party will vacillate ai$lessly %etween a

 &ealpoliti' devoid o ideals and an ideology without real content. !t was the lack o this

knowledge which characteriFed the revolutionary struggle o the %ourgeois class. 1n ideology othe ulti$ate goal existed even here, it is true, %ut it could not %e organically integrated into the

 planning o concrete action; rather, it developed in a largely prag$atic way, in the creation o

institutions which #uickly %eca$e ends in the$selves, there%y o%scuring the ulti$ate o%*ectiveitsel and degrading it to the level o pure, already ineectual ideology. The uni#ue sociological

signiicance o socialis$ is precisely that it provides a solution to this pro%le$. =or i the

ulti$ate o%*ective o socialis$ is utopian in the sense that it transcends the econo$ic, legal and

social li$its o conte$porary society and can only %e realiFed through the destruction o thatsociety, it is anything %ut utopian in the sense that its attain$ent would entail the a%sorption o

ideas hovering outside or a%ove society. The Marxist theory o class struggle, which in this

respect is wholly derived ro$ Hegel)s conceptual syste$, changes the transcendent o%*ectiveinto an i$$anent one; the class struggle o the proletariat is at once the o%*ective itsel and its

realiFation. This process is not a $eans the signiicance and value o which can %e *udged %y the

standards o a goal which transcends it; it is rather a new elucidation o the utopian society, step %y step, leap %y leap, corresponding to the logic o history. This i$plies i$$ersion in

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 29/71

conte$porary social reality. The ($eans) are not alien to the goal as was the case with the

realiFation o %ourgeois ideology-; instead, they %ring the goal closer to sel+realiFation. !t

ollows that there will %e conceptually indeter$ina%le transitional stages %etween the tactical$eans and the ulti$ate o%*ective; it is never possi%le to know in advance which tactical step will

succeed in achieving the ulti$ate o%*ective itsel.

This %rings us to the decisive criterion o socialist tactics the philosophy o history. The act o

the class struggle is nothing other than a sociological description and an elevation o events intolaws which are eective in social reality; the meaning o the class struggle o the proletariat,

however, goes %eyond this act. ssentially, o course, the $eaning cannot %e separated ro$ the

act, %ut it is directed towards the e$ergence o a social order which diers ro$ that o every previous society in that it no longer knows either oppressors or oppressed. !n order that the epoch

o econo$ic dependence, which is an aront to hu$an dignity, should co$e to an end, the %lind

 power o econo$ic orces $ust, as Marx says, %e %roken and replaced %y a higher power whichcorresponds $ore exactly to the dignity o $an."apital , olu$e !!!-

Thereore, to weigh up and understand correctly the conte$porary econo$ic and socialcon*uncture, the true relations o power, is never $ore than to $eet the prere#uisites or correct

socialist action, correct tactics. !t does not in itsel constitute a criterion o correctness. The onlyvalid yardstick is whether the manner o the action in a given case serves to realiFe this goal,

which is the essence o the socialist $ove$ent. Hence, since this ulti$ate o%*ective is not served

 %y #ualitatively dierent $eans; since, rather, the $eans signiy in the$selves the progresstowards that o%*ective, all $eans %y which this historico+philosophical process is raised to the

conscious and real level are to %e considered valid, whereas all $eans which $ystiy such

consciousness U as or exa$ple acceptance o the legal order, o the continuity o (historical)

develop$ent, let alone the momentary $aterial interests o the proletariat U are to %e re*ected. ! ever there was a historical $ove$ent to which &ealpoliti' presents a %aneul and o$inous threat,

it is that o socialis$.

That $eans concretely that every gesture o solidarity with the existing order is raught with suchdanger. eriving though they $ay well do ro$ true inner conviction, our insistent protests that

such and such a gesture o solidarity indicates only a $o$entary, i$$ediate co$$unity o

interests, nothing $ore than a provisional alliance or the attain$ent o a concrete goal,

nevertheless do not o%viate the danger that the eeling o solidarity will take root in that or$ oconsciousness which necessarily o%scures the world+historical consciousness, the awakening o

hu$anity to sel+consciousness. The class struggle o the proletariat is not $erely a class struggle

i it were, it would indeed %e governed si$ply %y &ealpoliti'?, %ut a $eans where%y hu$anityli%erates itsel, a $eans to the true %eginning o human history. very co$pro$ise $ade

o%scures precisely this aspect o the struggle and is thereore U despite all its possi%le, short+

ter$ %ut extre$ely pro%le$atical- advantages U atal to the achieve$ent o this true ulti$ateo%*ective. 1s long as the present social order persists, the ruling classes re$ain in a position to

co$pensate, openly or covertly, or whatever econo$ic or political advantages have %een won in

this ashion. "uch (co$pensatory) $easures eectively worsen the conditions or the

continuation o the struggle, since o%viously the co$pro$ise will weaken the $ood oresistance. Tactical deviations within socialis$ are thereore o $ore unda$ental signiicance

than is the case with other historical $ove$ents. The sense o world history deter$ines the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 30/71

tactical criteria, and it is %eore history that he who does not deviate or reasons o expediency

ro$ the narrow, steep path o correct action prescri%ed %y the philosophy o history which alone

leads to the goal, undertakes responsi%ility or all his deeds.

!t see$s to ollow ro$ the a%ove that we have also discovered the answer to the ethical

 pro%le$; that adherence to the correct tactics is in itsel ethical. 'ut it is at this point that thedangerous aspects o the Hegelian legacy in Marxis$ %eco$e apparent. Hegel)s syste$ is devoid

o ethics; in his work ethics are supplanted %y the syste$ o $aterial, spiritual and social goodsin which his social philosophy cul$inates. ssentially Marxis$ has taken over this or$ o

ethics as we see, or exa$ple, in autsky)s %ook 4 %thics and the aterialist conception o @istory6- $erely positing other (values) than the Hegelian ones, and without raising the #uestionas to whether or not the #uest or socially correct (values), socially correct goals U irrespective

o the inner $otives o the action U is there%y in itsel ethical, although it is clear that the

#uestion o ethics can only proceed ro$ these socially correct goals. Ieople who deny theethical ra$iications which arise at this point also deny their ethical possi%ility, and co$e into

conlict with the $ost pri$itive, universal psychological acts conscience and the sense o

responsi%ility. 7hat all such people are concerned with is not pri$arily what a person did orwanted that is governed %y the nor$s o social and political action-, %ut whether what he did or

wanted and why he did it or wanted it was o%*ectively correct or alse. This #uestion o the whys

and whereores, however, can only arise in individual cases, it has no $eaning except in relation

to the individual, in sharp contrast to the tactical #uestion o o%*ective correctness, theuna$%iguous resolution o which is only to %e ound in the collective action o groups o hu$an

 %eings. Thereore we $ay state the #uestion which conronts us in these ter$s (How do

conscience and the sense o responsi%ility o the individual relate to the pro%le$ o tacticallycorrect collective actionA)

!t is $ost i$portant at this *uncture to esta%lish a $utual dependence, precisely %ecause the two

types o action %eing related are essentially independent o each other. 0n the one hand, the#uestion whether any given tactical decision is right or wrong is independent o the #uestionwhether or not the decision was deter$ined %y $oral $otives on the part o those who act in

accordance with it. 0n the other hand, an action that springs ro$ the purest ethical source can,

ro$ a tactical point o view, %e co$pletely $istaken. This independence o each other, however,is $ore apparent than real. =or U as we shall see later U once the purely ethically $otivated

action o the individual %rings hi$ into the ield o politics, even its o%*ective historico+

 philosophical- correctness or incorrectness can no longer %e a $atter o ethical indierence.Moreover, %y virtue o the historico+philosophical orientation o socialist tactics, a collective

action $ust arise in that one individual will once the $any individual wills have %een

aggregated- and the governing historico+philosophical consciousness $ust express itsel in hi$

 U particularly since the necessary re*ection o the i$$ediate advantage in the interest o theulti$ate o%*ective would otherwise %e i$possi%le. The pro%le$ can now %e posed in the

ollowing ter$s what ethical considerations inspire in the individual the decision that the

necessary historico+philosophical consciousness he possesses can %e transor$ed into correct political action, i.e. co$ponent o a collective will, and can also deter$ine that actionA

To re+e$phasiFe the point ethics relate to the individual and the necessary conse#uence o this

relationship is that the individual)s conscience and sense o responsi%ility are conronted with the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 31/71

 postulate that he $ust act as i on his action or inaction depended the changing o the world)s

destiny, the approach o which is inevita%ly helped or hindered %y the tactics he is a%out to

adopt. =or in the real$ o ethics there is no neutrality and no i$partiality; even he who isunwilling to act $ust %e a%le to account to this conscience or his inactivity.- veryone who at

the present ti$e opts or co$$unis$ is thereore o%liged to %ear the sa$e individual

responsi%ility or each and every hu$an %eing who dies or hi$ in the struggle, as i he hi$selhad killed the$ all. 'ut all those who ally the$selves to the other side, the deence o capitalis$,

$ust %ear the sa$e individual responsi%ility or the destruction entailed in the new i$perialist

revanchist wars which are surely i$$inent, and or the uture oppression o the nationalities andclasses. =ro$ the ethical point o view, no one can escape responsi%ility with the excuse that he

is only an individual, on who$ the ate o the world does not depend. Jot only can this not %e

known o%*ectively or certain, %ecause it is always possi%le that it will depend precisely on the

individual, %ut this kind o thinking is also $ade i$possi%le %y the very essence o ethics, %yconscience and the sense o responsi%ility. He whose decision does not arise ro$ such

considerations U no $atter how highly developed a creature he $ay otherwise %e exists in

ethical ter$s at a pri$itive, unconscious, instinctual level.

This purely or$al and ethical deinition o individual action, however, does not clariy

suiciently the relationship %etween tactics and ethics. 7hen the individual who $akes an

ethical decision within hi$sel then ollows or re*ects a particular tactical course, he $oves onto

a special level o action, that o politics, and the distinctiveness o his action entails U ro$ thestandpoint o pure ethics U the conse#uence that he $ust know under what circu$stances and

how he acts.

The concept o (knowledge) there%y introduced into the argu$ent re#uires urther clariication.

0n the one hand, (knowledge) is %y no $eans to %e taken as total understanding o the actual political situation and all its possi%le conse#uences; nor, on the other hand, can it %e regarded as

the result o purely su%*ective deli%erations, where, that is, the individual concerned acts (to the %est o his a%ility and in good aith). ! the or$er were the case, every hu$an action would %ei$possi%le ro$ the outset; i the latter, the way would %e clear or extre$e levity and rivolity

and every $oral standard would %eco$e illusory. "ince, though, the individual)s seriousness and

sense o responsi%ility constitute a $oral standard or every deed, i$plying that the individualconcerned could know the conse#uences o his deeds, the #uestion arises whether or not, in the

light o this knowledge, he could answer or these conse#uences to his conscience. This o%*ective

 possi%ility ad$ittedly varies according to the individual and ro$ case to case, %ut essentially, %oth or the individual and ro$ case to case, it is always deter$ina%le. ven now, or every

socialist, the actual historico+philosophical pressure o the social ideal o socialis$ deter$ines

 %oth the content o the o%*ective possi%ilities or realiFing that ideal and also the very act that

the criterion o possi%ility should itsel %e possi%le. =or every socialist, then, $orally correctaction is related unda$entally to the correct perception o the given historico+philosophical

situation, which in turn is only easi%le through the eorts o every individual to $ake this sel+

consciousness conscious or hi$sel. The irst unavoida%le prere#uisite or this is the or$ationo class consciousness. !n order or correct action to %eco$e an authentic, correct regulator, class

consciousness $ust raise itsel a%ove the level o the $erely given; it $ust re$e$%er its world+

historical $ission and its sense o responsi%ility. =or the class interest the attain$ent o which$akes up the content o class+conscious action coincides neither with the su$ o the personal

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 32/71

interests o the individuals %elonging to the class nor with the i$$ediate short+ter$ interests o

the class as a collective entity. The class interests which will %ring socialis$ a%out and the class+

consciousness in which they ind expression signiy a world+historical $ission U and hence,too, the o%*ective possi%ility $entioned a%ove i$plies the #uestion has the historical $o$ent

already arrived which leads U or rather leaps ro$ the stage o steady approach to that o true

realiFationA

very individual $ust, however, %e aware that, %y the very nature o the $atter, we can talk onlyin ter$s o a possi%ility. 7e cannot conceive o a hu$an science which could say or society,

with the accuracy and certainty that characteriFes the astrono$er)s prediction o the appearance

o a co$et today the ti$e has co$e or the realiFation o the principles o socialis$. Likewise,there exists no science which could say today the ti$e is not yet ripe, we $ust wait, it will co$e

to$orrow or in another two years. "cience, knowledge, can indicate only possi%ilities U and it is

only in the real$ o the possi%le that $oral, responsi%le action, truly hu$an action, is itsel possi%le. =or the individual who seiFes this possi%ility, however, there is, i he is a socialist, no

choice and no hesitation.

This is not %y any $eans to suggest that action which arises in this ashion $ust necessarily %e

$orally aultless and unexceptiona%le. !t is not the task o ethics to invent prescriptions orcorrect action, nor to iron out or deny the insupera%le, tragic conlicts o hu$an destiny. 0n the

contrary ethical sel+awareness $akes it #uite clear that there are situations U tragic situations

 U in which it is i$possi%le to act without %urdening onesel with guilt. 'ut at the sa$e ti$e itteaches us that, even aced with the choice o two ways o incurring guilt, we should still ind

that there is a standard attaching to correct and incorrect action. This standard we call sacriice.

1nd *ust as the individual who chooses %etween two or$s o guilt inally $akes the correct

choice when he sacriices his inerior sel on the altar o the higher idea, so it also takes strengthto assess this sacriice in ter$s o the collective action. !n the latter case, however, the idea

represents an i$perative o the world+historical situation, a historico+philosophical $ission. !none o his novels, @opschin 'oris "avinkov456-, the leader o the terrorist group during the@ussian @evolution ro$ 5DE: to 5Do?, put the pro%le$ o individual terror in the ollowing

ter$s

$urder is not allowed, it is an a%solute and unpardona%le sin; it ($ay) not, %ut yet it ($ust) %e

co$$itted. lsewhere in the sa$e %ook he sees, not the *ustiication that is i$possi%le- %ut theulti$ate $oral %asis o the terrorist)s act as the sacriice or his %rethren, not only o his lie, %ut

also o his purity, his $orals, his very soul. !n other words, only he who acknowledges

unlinchingly and without any reservations that $urder is under no circu$stances to %esanctioned can co$$it the $urderous deed that is truly U and tragically U $oral. To express

this sense o the $ost proound hu$an tragedy in the inco$para%ly %eautiul words o He%%el)s

Kudith (ven i God had placed sin %etween $e and the deed en*oined upon $e U who a$ ! to %e a%le to escape itA)

5. 'oris "avinkov 5BD U 5D8>-. 0 particular i$portance to Lukacs were the  emoirs o aTerrorist and 6hat never happened. A 1ovel o the &evolution . The latter work treats o the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 33/71

unworldliness o the @ussian revolutionaries. !n a letter to Iaul rnst o : May 5D5>, LukRcs

wrote (Considering @opschin)s %ooks as docu$ents rather than works o art, ! did not at all see

the$ as pathological sy$pto$s, %ut instead as a new $aniestation o the old conlict %etween a pri$ary ethic o%ligation towards institutions- and a secondary ethic o%ligations towards the

soul-. The #uestion o pri$acy always takes on a peculiar dialectical co$plexity when the soul is

not suicient unto itsel, %ut is involved in $ankind U as in the case o political $an, o therevolutionary. Here, i the soul is to %e saved, the soul $ust %e sacriiced starting ro$ a

$ystical ethic one is orced to %eco$e a %rutal &ealpoliti'er and to violate the a%solute

co$$and$ent 2Thou shalt not kill3 which entails no o%ligations to institutions) @.L.-.

 

Lukacs 1rchive Q thics 

History and Class Consciousness Georg LukRcs 5D89

The Marxism of Rosa Luxemburg

cono$ists explain how production takes place in the a%ove+$entioned relations, %ut what theydo not explain is how these relations the$selves are produced, that is, the historical $ove$ent

that gave the$ %irth.

Marx The Ioverty o Ihilosophy.

1

!T is not the pri$acy o econo$ic $otives in historical explanation that constitutes the decisive

dierence %etween Marxis$ and %ourgeois thought, %ut the point o view o totality. Thecategory o totality, the all+pervasive supre$acy o the whole over the parts is the essence o the

$ethod which Marx took over ro$ Hegel and %rilliantly transor$ed into the oundations o a

wholly new science. The capitalist separation o the producer ro$ the total process o

 production, the division o the process o la%our into parts at the cost o the individual hu$anityo the worker, the ato$isation o society into individuals who si$ply go on producing without

rhy$e or reason, $ust all have a proound inluence on the thought, the science and the

 philosophy o capitalis$. Iroletarian science is revolutionary not *ust %y virtue o itsrevolutionary ideas which it opposes to %ourgeois society, %ut a%ove all %ecause o its $ethod.

The primacy o the category o totality is the bearer o the principle o revolution in science.

The revolutionary nature o Hegelian dialectics had oten %een recognised as such %eore Marx,

notwithstanding Hegel)s own conservative applications o the $ethod. 'ut no one had convertedthis knowledge into a science o revolution. !t was Marx who transor$ed the Hegelian $ethod

into what HerFen descri%ed as the (alge%ra o revolution). !t was not enough, however, to give it

a $aterialist twist. The revolutionary principle inherent in Hegel)s dialectic was a%le to co$e tothe surace less %ecause o that than %ecause o the validity o the $ethod itsel, viF. the concept

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 34/71

o totality, the su%ordination o every part to the whole unity o history and, thought. !n Marx the

dialectical $ethod ai$s at understanding society as a whole. 'ourgeois thought concerns itsel

with o%*ects that arise either ro$ the process o studying pheno$ena in isolation, or ro$ thedivision o la%our and specialisation in the dierent disciplines. !t holds a%stractions to %e (real)

i it is naively realistic, and (autono$ous) i it is critical.

Marxis$, however, si$ultaneously raises and reduces all specialisations to the level o aspects in

a dialectical process. This is not to deny that the process o a%straction and hence the isolation othe ele$ents and concepts in the special disciplines and whole areas o study is o the very

essence o science. 'ut what is decisive is whether this process o isolation is a $eans towards

understanding the whole and whether it is integrated within the context it presupposes andre#uires, or whether the a%stract knowledge o an isolated rag$ent retains its (autono$y) and

 %eco$es an end in itsel. !n the last analysis Marxis$ does not acknowledge the existence o

independent sciences o law, econo$ics or history, etc. there is nothing %ut a single, uniied /dialectical and historical / science o the evolution o society as a totality.

The category o totality, however, deter$ines not only the o%*ect o knowledge %ut also thesu%*ect. 'ourgeois thought *udges social pheno$ena consciously or unconsciously, naively or

su%tly, consistently ro$ the standpoint o the individual.456  Jo path leads ro$ the individual tothe totality; there is at %est a road leading to aspects o particular areas, $ere rag$ents or the

$ost part, (acts) %are o any context, or to a%stract, special laws. The totality o an o%*ect can

only %e posited i the positing su%*ect is itsel a totality; and i the su%*ect wishes to understanditsel, it $ust conceive o the o%*ect as a totality. !n $odern society only the classes can represent

this total point o view. 'y tackling every pro%le$ ro$ this angle, a%ove all in "apital , Marx

supplied a corrective to Hegel who still wavered %etween the 2great individual and the a%stract

spirit o the people.3 1lthough his successors understood hi$ even less well here than on theissue o (idealis$) versus ($aterialis$) this corrective proved even $ore salutary and decisive.

Classical econo$ics and a%ove all its vulgarisers have always considered the develop$ent o

capitalis$ ro$ the point o view o the individual capitalist. This involved the$ in a series oinsolu%le contradictions and pseudo+pro%le$s. Marx)s "apital  represents a radical %reak with

this procedure. Jot that he acts the part o an agitator who treats every aspect exclusively ro$

the proletarian standpoint. "uch a one+sided approach would only result in a new vulgar

econo$ics with plus and $inus signs reversed. His $ethod is to consider the pro%le$s o thewhole o capitalist society as pro%le$s o the classes constituting it, the classes %eing regarded as

totalities. My ai$ in this essay is to point to $ethodological pro%le$s and so it is not possi%le to

show here how Marx)s $ethod throws a co$pletely new light on a whole series o pro%le$s,how new pro%le$s e$erge which classical econo$ics was una%le even to gli$pse, let alone

solve, and how $any o their pseudo+pro%le$s dissolve into thin air. My ai$ here is to elucidate

as clearly as possi%le the two pre$ises o a genuine application o the dialectical $ethod asopposed to the rivolous use $ade o it %y Hegel)s traditionalist successors. These pre$ises are

the need to postulate a totality irstly as a posited o%*ect and then as a positing su%*ect.

2

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 35/71

@osa Luxe$%urg)s $a*or work  The Accumulation o "apital  takes up the pro%le$ at this

 *uncture ater decades o vulgarised Marxis$. The trivialisation o Marxis$ and its delection

into a %ourgeois (science) was expressed irst, $ost clearly and rankly in 'ernstein)s $remiseso )ocialism. !t is anything %ut an accident that the chapter in this %ook which %egins with an

onslaught on the dialectical $ethod in the na$e o exact (science) should end %y %randing Marx

as a 'lan#uist. !t is no accident %ecause the $o$ent you a%andon the point o view o totality,you $ust also *ettison the starting+point and the goal, the assu$ptions and the re#uire$ents o

the dialectical $ethod. 7hen this happens revolution will %e understood not as part o a process

 %ut as an isolated act cut o ro$ the general course o events. ! that is so it $ust inevita%lysee$ as i the revolutionary aspects o Marx are really *ust a relapse into the pri$itive period o

the workers) $ove$ent, i.e. 'lan#uis$. The whole syste$ o Marxis$ stands and alls with the

 principle that revolution is the product o a point o view in which the category o totality is

do$inant. ven in its opportunis$ 'ernstein)s criticis$ is $uch too opportunistic or all thei$plications o this position to e$erge clearly.486

'ut even though the opportunists sought a%ove all to eradicate the notion o the dialectical

course o history ro$ Marxis$, they could not evade its inelucta%le conse#uences. Theecono$ic develop$ent o the i$perialist age had $ade it progressively $ore diicult to %elieve

in their pseudo+attacks on the capitalist syste$ and in the (scientiic) analysis o isolated

 pheno$ena in the na$e o the (o%*ective and exact sciences). !t was not enough to declare a

 political co$$it$ent or or against capitalis$. 0ne had to declare one)s theoretical co$$it$entalso. 0ne had to choose either to regard the whole history o society ro$ a Marxist point o

view, i.e. as a totality, and hence to co$e to grips with the pheno$enon o i$perialis$ in theory

and practice. 0r else to evade this conrontation %y conining onesel to the analysis o isolatedaspects in one or other o the special disciplines. The attitude that inspires $onographs is the %est

way to place a screen %eore the pro%le$ the very sight o which strikes terror into the heart o a

"ocial+e$ocratic $ove$ent turned opportunist. 'y discovering (exact) descriptions or isolated

areas and (eternally valid laws) or speciic cases they have %lurred the dierences separatingi$perialis$ ro$ the preceding age. They ound the$selves in a capitalist society (in general) /

and its existence see$ed to the$ to correspond to the nature o hu$an reason, and the (laws o

nature) every %it as $uch as it had see$ed to @icardo and his successors, the %ourgeois vulgarecono$ists.

!t would %e un+Marxist and undialectical to ask whether this theoretical relapse into the

$ethodology o vulgar econo$ics was the cause or the eect o this prag$atic opportunis$. !nthe eyes o historical $aterialis$ the two tendencies %elong together they constitute the social

a$%ience o "ocial e$ocracy %eore the 7ar. The theoretical conlicts in @osa Luxe$%urg)s

 Accumulation o "apital  can %e understood only within that $ilieu.

The de%ate as conducted %y 'auer, ckstein and Co. did not turn on the truth or alsity o thesolution @osa Luxe$%urg proposed to the pro%le$ o the accu$ulation o capital. 0n the

contrary, discussion centred on whether there was a real pro%le$ at all and in the event its

existence was denied latly and with the ut$ost vehe$ence. "een ro$ the standpoint o vulgar

econo$ics this is #uite understanda%le, and even inevita%le. =or i it is treated as an isolated pro%le$ in econo$ics and ro$ the point o view o the individual capitalist it is easy to argue

that no real pro%le$ exists.496

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 36/71

Logically enough the critics who dis$issed the whole pro%le$ also ignored the decisive chapter

o her %ook 2The historical deter$inants o 1ccu$ulation3-. This can %e seen ro$ the way they

or$ulated their key #uestion. The #uestion they posed was this Marx)s or$ulae were arrived aton the %asis o a hypothetical society posited or reasons o $ethod- which consisted only o

capitalists and workers. 7ere these or$ulae correctA How were they to %e interpretedA The

critics co$pletely overlooked the act that Marx posited this society or the sake o argu$ent, i.e.to see the pro%le$ $ore clearly, %eore pressing orward to the larger #uestion o the place o

this pro%le$ within society as a whole. They overlooked the act that Marx hi$sel took this step

with reerence to so+called pri$itive accu$ulation, in olu$e ! o "apital . Consciously orunconsciously they suppressed the act that on this issue "apital  is an inco$plete rag$ent

which stops short at the point where this pro%le$ should %e opened up. !n this sense what @osa

Luxe$%urg has done is precisely to take up the thread where Marx let o and to solve the

 pro%le$ in his spirit.

'y ignoring these actors the opportunists acted #uite consistently. The pro%le$ is indeed

superluous ro$ the standpoint o the individual capitalist and vulgar econo$ics. 1s ar as the

or$er is concerned, econo$ic reality has the appearance o a world governed %y the eternallaws o nature, laws to which he has to ad*ust his activities. =or hi$ the production o surplus

value very oten though not always, it is true- takes the or$ o an exchange with other

individual capitalists. 1nd the whole pro%le$ o accu$ulation resolves itsel into a #uestion o

the $aniold per$utations o the or$ulae M+C+M and C+M+C in the course o production andcirculation, etc. !t thus %eco$es an isolated #uestion or the vulgar econo$ists, a #uestion

unconnected with the ulti$ate ate o capitalis$ as a whole. The solution to the pro%le$ is

oicially guaranteed %y the Marxist (or$ulae) which are correct in the$selves and need only to %e (%rought up to date) / a task peror$ed e.g. %y 0tto 'auer. However, we $ust insist that

econo$ic reality can never %e understood solely on the %asis o these or$ulae %ecause they are

 %ased on an a%straction viF. the working hypothesis that society consists only o capitalists and

workers-. Hence they can serve only or clariication and as a spring%oard or an assault on thereal pro%le$. 'auer and his conreres $isunderstood this *ust as surely as the disciples o

@icardo $isunderstood the pro%le$atics o Marx in their day.

The Accumulation o "apital takes up again the $ethods and #uestions posed %y the young Marxin The $overty o $hilosophy. !n that work Marx had su%*ected to scrutiny the historical

conditions that had $ade @icardo)s econo$ics possi%le and via%le. "i$ilarly, @osa Luxe$%urg

applied the sa$e $ethod to the inco$plete analyses in olu$es 8 and 9 o "apital. 1s theideological representatives o capitalis$ in the ascendant, %ourgeois econo$ists were orced to

identiy the (Laws o Jature) discovered %y 1da$ "$ith and @icardo with the existing social

order so as to %e a%le to see capitalist society as the only or$ o society corresponding to the

reason and the nature o $an. Likewise here "ocial e$ocracy was the ideological exponent oa workers) aristocracy turned petty %ourgeois. !t had a deinite interest in the i$perialist

exploitation o the whole world in the last phase o capitalis$ %ut sought to evade its inevita%le

ate the 7orld 7ar. !t was co$pelled to construe the evolution o society as i it were possi%leor capitalist accu$ulation to operate in the rariied at$osphere o $athe$atical or$ulae, i.e.

unpro%le$atically and without a 7orld 7ar. !n the upshot, their political insight and oresight

co$pared very unavoura%ly with that o the great %ourgeois and capitalist classes with theirinterest in i$perialist exploitation together with its $ilitarist conse#uences. However, it did

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 37/71

ena%le the$ even then to take up their present theoretical position as guardians o the everlasting

capitalist econo$ic order; guardians against the ated catastrophic conse#uences towards which

the true exponents o capitalist i$perialis$ were driting with open %ut unseeing eyes.

=or a capitalist class in the ascendant the identiication o @icardo)s (Laws o Jature) with the

existing social order had represented a $eans o ideological sel+deence. Likewise here, theinterpretation o Marx current in the 1ustrian school and especially its identiication o Marx)s

a%stractions with the totality o society represents a (rational) $eans o sel+deence or acapitalis$ in decline. 1nd *ust as the young Marx)s concept o totality cast a %right light upon the

 pathological sy$pto$s o a still+lourishing capitalis$, so too in the studies o @osa Luxe$%urg

we ind the %asic pro%le$s o capitalis$ analysed within the context o the historical process as awhole and in her work we see how the last lowering o capitalis$ is transor$ed into a ghastly

dance o death, into the inexora%le $arch o 0edipus to his doo$.

3

@osa Luxe$%urg devoted a whole pa$phlet which was pu%lished posthu$ously- exclusively tothe reutation o (Marxist) vulgar econo$ics. 'oth its approach and its $ethod $ake it appear as

a kind o natural appendage to the end o "ection !! o The Accumulation o "apital where itwould take its place as the ourth round in her treat$ent o this crucial pro%le$ o capitalist

develop$ent. Characteristically, the larger part o it is concerned with historical analysis. 'y this

! $ean $ore than the Marxian analysis o si$ple and expanded reproduction which or$s thestarting+point o the whole study and the prelude to the conclusive solution o this pro%le$. 1t

the core o the work is what we can descri%e as the literary+historical exa$ination o the great

de%ates o the #uestion o accu$ulation the de%ate %etween "is$ondi and @icardo and his

school; %etween @od%ertus and irch$ann; %etween the Jarodniki and the @ussian Marxists.

The adoption o this approach does not place her outside the Marxist tradition. 0n the contrary, iti$plies a return to the pristine and unsullied traditions o Marxis$ to Marx)s own $ethod. =or

his irst, $ature, co$plete and conclusive work, The $overty o $hilosophy, reutes Iroudhon %yreaching %ack to the true sources o his views, to @icardo and Hegel. His analysis o where, how,

and a%ove all, why Iroudhon had to $isunderstand Hegel is the source o light that relentlessly

exposes Iroudhon)s sel+contradictions. !t goes even urther, and illu$inates the dark places,

unknown to Iroudhon hi$sel, ro$ which these errors spring the class relations o which hisviews are the theoretical expression. =or as Marx says, 2econo$ic categories are nothing %ut the

theoretical expressions, the a%stractions o the social relations o production.3 4:6 !t is true that in

his principal theoretical works he was prevented %y the scope and wealth o the individual pro%le$s treated ro$ e$ploying a historical approach. 'ut this should not o%scure the essential 

 similarity in his approach. "apital and The Theories o )urplus alue are in essence a singlework whose internal structure points to the solution o the pro%le$ so %rilliantly sketched in %road outline in The $overty o $hilosophy.

The #uestion o the internal structuring o the pro%le$ leads us %ack to the central issue

conronting the dialectical $ethod to the right understanding o the do$inant position held %y

the concept o totality and hence to the philosophy o Hegel. 0n this essential point Marx nevera%andoned Hegel)s philosophical $ethod. 1nd this was at all ti$es / and $ost convincingly in

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 38/71

The $henomenology o ind  / %oth the history o philosophy and the philosophy o history. =or

the Hegelian / dialectical / identiication o thought and existence, the %elie in their unity as the

unity and totality o a process is also, in essence, the philosophy o history o historical$aterialis$.

ven Marx)s $aterialist pole$ic against the (ideological) view o history is ai$ed $ore atHegel)s ollowers than at the $aster hi$sel, who on this point stood $uch closer to Marx than

Marx $ay hi$sel have realised ro$ his position in the thick o the struggle against theossilised (idealisation) o the dialectical $ethod. =or the (a%solute) idealis$ o Hegel)s ollowers

i$plies the dissolution o the original syste$;4>6 it i$plies the divorce o dialectics ro$ the

living stu o history and this $eans ulti$ately the disruption o the dialectical unity o thoughtand existence. !n the dog$atic $aterialis$ o Marx)s epigones we ind a repetition o the process

dissolving the concrete totality o historical reality. 1nd even i their $ethod does not degenerate

into the e$pty a%stract sche$ata o Hegel)s disciples, it does harden into a vulgar econo$ics anda $echanical preoccupation with specialised sciences. ! the purely ideological constructions o

the Hegelians proved une#ual to the task o understanding historical events, the Marxists have

revealed a co$para%le ina%ility to understand either the connections o the so+called (ideological)or$s o society and their econo$ic %ase or the econo$y itsel as a totality and as social reality.

7hatever the su%*ect o de%ate, the dialectical $ethod is concerned always with the sa$e

 pro%le$ knowledge o the historical process in its entirety. This $eans that (ideological) and

(econo$ic) pro%le$s lose their $utual exclusiveness and $erge into one another. The history oa particular problem turns into the history o problems. The literary or scientiic exposition o a

 pro%le$ appears as the expression o a social whole, o its possi%ilities, li$its and pro%le$s. The

approach o literary history is the one %est suited to the pro%le$s o history. The history o

 philosophy %eco$es the philosophy o history.

!t is thereore no accident that the two unda$ental studies which inaugurate the theoreticalre%irth o Marxis$, @osa Luxe$%urg)s The Accumulation o "apital  and Lenin)s )tate and &evolution, %oth use the approach adopted %y the young Marx. To ensure that the pro%le$s under consideration will arise %eore us dialectically, they provide what is su%stantially a literary+

historical account o their genesis. They analyse the changes and reversals in the views leading

up to the pro%le$ as it presents itsel to the$. They ocus upon every stage o intellectual

clariication or conusion and place it in the historical context conditioning it and resulting ro$it. This ena%les the$ to evoke with unparalleled vividness the historical process o which their

own approach and their own solutions are the cul$ination. This $ethod has a%solutely nothing in

co$$on with the tradition in %ourgeois science to which social+de$ocratic theoreticians also %elong- o 2taking the achieve$ents o their orerunners into account3. =or there the distinction

drawn %etween theory and history, and the lack o reciprocity %etween the separate disciplines

leads to the disappearance o the pro%le$ o totality in the interests o greater specialisation. 1s aresult, the history o a pro%le$ %eco$es $ere theoretical and literary %allast. !t is o interest only

to the experts who inlate it to the point where it o%scures the real pro%le$s and osters $indless

specialisation.

@eviving the literary and $ethodological traditions o Marx and Hegel, Lenin converts thehistory o his pro%le$ to an inner history o the uropean revolutions o the nineteenth century;

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 39/71

and the literary+historical approach o @osa Luxe$%urg grows into a history o the struggles o

the capitalist syste$ to survive and expand. The struggle was triggered o %y the great crises o

55> and 55S5D, the irst great shocks sustained %y a capitalis$ that was growing %ut was asyet undeveloped. The de%ate was introduced %y "is$ondi)s 1ouveau! $rincipes dBCconomie $oliti#ue. espite his reactionary purpose his work gives us our irst insight into the dile$$as o 

capitalis$. !deologically, this undeveloped or$ o capitalis$ has recourse to attitudes as one+sided and wrong+headed as those o its opponents. 7hile as a reactionary sceptic "is$ondi

deduces ro$ the existence o crises the i$possi%ility o accu$ulation the advocates o the new

syste$ o production, their opti$is$ uni$paired, deny that crises are inevita%le and that there isin act any dile$$a at all.

! we look at the pro%le$ now we see that the social distri%ution o the #uestioners and the social

signiicance o their answers has now %een co$pletely inverted. The present the$e / even

though it has not received the recognition it deserves / is the ate o the revolution and the doo$o capitalis$. The Marxist diagnosis has had a decisive i$pact on this change and this is itsel

sy$pto$atic o the way in which the ideological leadership is slipping ro$ the hands o the

 %ourgeoisie. =or while the petty %ourgeois nature o the Jarodniki shows itsel %latantly in theirtheory, it is interesting to o%serve how the @ussian (Marxists) are developing $ore and $ore

strongly into the ideological cha$pions o capitalis$. They view the prospects o the growth o

capitalis$ in ter$s that show the$ to the worthy heirs to "ay and MacCulloch. 27ithout dou%t

the (legal) @ussian Marxists have gained a victory3, @osa Luxe$%urg states,4?6 2over theirene$ies, the Iopulists; %ut their victory goes too ar. ... The #uestion is whether capitalis$ in

general and @ussian capitalis$ in particular is capa%le o growth and these Marxists have

de$onstrated this capa%ility so thoroughly that in theory they have proved that it is possi%le orcapitalis$ to last or ever. !t is evident that i the li$itless accu$ulation o capital can %e

assu$ed, then the li$itless via%ility o capitalis$ $ust ollow .... ! the capitalist $ode o

 production can ensure the unli$ited increase in the orces o production and hence o econo$ic

 progress, it will %e invinci%le.3

1t this point the ourth and last round in the controversy a%out accu$ulation %egins; it is the

 passage o ar$s %etween 0tto 'auer and @osa Luxe$%urg. The #uestion o social opti$is$ has

now shited. !n @osa Luxe$%urg)s hands the dou%ts a%out the possi%ility o accu$ulation shedtheir a%solute or$. The pro%le$ %eco$es the historical one o the conditions o accu$ulation

and thus it %eco$es certain that unli$ited accu$ulation is not possi%le. Ilaced into its total

social context accu$ulation %eco$es dialectical. !t then swells into the dialectics o the wholecapitalist syste$. 1s @osa Luxe$%urg puts it4B6 2The $o$ent the Marxian sche$e o expanded

reproduction corresponds to reality it points to the end, the historical li$its o the $ove$ent o

accu$ulation and therewith to the end o capitalist production. ! accu$ulation is i$possi%le

then urther growth in the orces o production is i$possi%le too. 1nd this $eans that thedestruction o capitalis$ %eco$es an o%*ective historical necessity. =ro$ this there ollow the

contradictory $ove$ents o the last, i$perialist phase, which is the ter$inal phase in the

historical career o capital.3 1s dou%t develops into certainty the petty+%ourgeois and reactionaryele$ents disappear without a trace doubt turns to optimism and to the theoretical certainty othe coming social revolution.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 40/71

Through a co$para%le shit the opposed view, the aith in li$itless accu$ulation is assailed %y

dou%ts, hesitations and petty %ourgeois vacillations. 0tto 'auer e$%races this aith %ut with a

$arked alling o ro$ the sunny, untrou%led opti$is$ o "ay or Tugan+'aranovsky. 'auer andhis associates work with a Marxist ter$inology, %ut their theory is essentially that o Iroudhon.

!n the last analysis their atte$pts to solve the pro%le$ o accu$ulation, or rather their atte$pts to

deny its existence, co$e to no $ore than Iroudhon)s endeavours to preserve the (good sides) ocapitalis$ while avoiding the (%ad sides).46 However, to recognise the existence o the pro%le$

o accu$ulation is to perceive that these (%ad sides) are an integral part o capitalis$; and this in

turn is to concede that i$perialis$, world war and world revolution are necessary actors in itsevolution. 'ut to ad$it this is not in the i$$ediate interests o the classes who$ the Centre

Marxists have co$e to represent and who wish to %elieve in an advanced capitalis$ without any

i$perialist (excrescences), and a (well+regulated) production ree o the (disruptions) o war.

1ccording to @osa Luxe$%urg,4D6 2the essence o this position is the atte$pt to persuade the %ourgeoisie that i$perialis$ and $ilitaris$ are da$aging to itsel even ro$ the point o view o 

their own capitalist interests. !t is hoped that %y this $anoeuvre the alleged handul o people

who proit ro$ i$perialis$ will %e isolated and that it will %e possi%le to or$ a %loc consisting

o the proletariat together with large sections o the %ourgeoisie. This %loc will then %e a%le to(ta$e) i$perialis$ and (re$ove its sting)V Li%eralis$ in decline directs its appeal away ro$ the

 %adly inor$ed $onarchy and towards a $onarchy that is to %e %etter inor$ed. !n the sa$e waythe (Marxist Centre) appeals over the heads o a $isguided %ourgeoisie to one which is to %e

 %etter instructed. ...3

'auer and his colleagues have $ade %oth an econo$ic and ideological su%$ission to capitalis$.

Their capitulation co$es to the surace in their econo$ic atalis$, in the %elie that capitalis$ isas i$$ortal as the (laws o nature). 'ut as genuine petty %ourgeois they are the ideological and

econo$ic appendages o capitalis$. Their wish to see a capitalis$ without any (%ad sides) and

without (excrescences) $eans that their opposition to capitalis$ is the typically ethical

opposition o the petty %ourgeoisie.

4

cono$ic atalis$ and the reor$ation o socialis$ through ethics are inti$ately connected. !t isno accident that they reappear in si$ilar or$ in 'ernstein, Tugan+'aranovsky and 0tto 'auer.

This is not $erely the result o the need to seek and ind a su%*ective su%stitute or the o%*ective

 path to revolution that they the$selves have %locked. !t is the logical conse#uence o the vulgar+econo$ic point o view and o $ethodological individualis$. The (ethical) reor$ation o

socialis$ is the su%*ective side o the $issing category o totality which alone can provide an

overall view. =or the individual, whether capitalist or proletarian, his environ$ent, his social

$ilieu including Jature which is the theoretical relection and pro*ection o that $ilieu- $ustappear the servant o a %rutal and senseless ate which is eternally alien to hi$. This world can

only %e understood %y $eans o a theory which postulates (eternal laws o nature). "uch a theory

endows the world with a rationality alien to $an and hu$an action can neither penetrate norinluence the world i $an takes up a purely conte$plative and atalistic stance.

7ithin such a world only two possi%le $odes o action co$$end the$selves and they are %oth

apparent rather than real ways o actively changing the world. =irstly, there is the exploitation or 

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 41/71

 particular hu$an ends as in technology, or exa$ple- o the atalistically accepted and

i$$uta%le laws which are seen in the $anner we have already descri%ed. "econdly, there is

action directed wholly inwards. This is the atte$pt to change the world at its only re$aining ree point, na$ely $an hi$sel ethics-. 'ut as the world %eco$es $echanised its su%*ect, $an,

necessarily %eco$es $echanised too and so this ethics likewise re$ains a%stract. Conronted %y

the totality o $an in isolation ro$ the world it re$ains $erely nor$ative and ails to %e trulyactive in its creation o o%*ects. !t is only prescriptive and i$perative in character. The logical

nexus %etween ant)s "riti#ue o $ure &eason and his "riti#ue o $ractical &eason is cogent

and inescapa%le. 1nd every (Marxist) student o socio+econo$ic realities who a%andons the$ethod o Hegel and Marx, i.e. the study o the historical process ro$ a total point o view and

who su%stitutes or it a (critical) $ethod which seeks unhistorical (laws) in the special sciences

will %e orced to return to the a%stract ethical i$peratives o the antian school as soon as the

#uestion o action %eco$es i$$inent.

=or the destruction o a totalising point o view disrupts the unity o theory and practice. 1ction,

 praxis / which Marx de$anded %eore all else in his Theses on Feuerbach < is in essence the

 penetration and transor$ation o reality. 'ut reality can only %e understood and penetrated as atotality, and only a su%*ect which is itsel a totality is capa%le o this penetration. !t was not or

nothing that the young Hegel erected his philosophy upon the principle that 2truth $ust %e

understood and expressed not $erely as su%stance, %ut also as su%*ect.345E6 7ith this he exposed

the deepest error and the ulti$ate li$itation o Classical Ger$an philosophy. However, his own philosophy ailed to live up to this precept and or $uch o the ti$e it re$ained en$eshed in the

sa$e snares as those o his predecessors.

!t was let to Marx to $ake the concrete discovery o (truth as the su%*ect) and hence to esta%lish

the unity o theory and practice. This he achieved %y ocusing the known totality upon the realityo the historical process and %y conining it to this. 'y this $eans he deter$ined %oth the

knowa%le totality and the totality to %e known. The scientiic superiority o the standpoint oclass as against that o the individual- has %eco$e clear ro$ the oregoing. Jow we see thereason or this superiority only the class can actively penetrate the reality o society andtransorm it in its entirety. =or this reason, (criticis$) advanced ro$ the standpoint o class is

criticis$ ro$ a total point o view and hence it provides the dialectical unity o theory and practice. !n dialectical unity it is at once cause and eect, $irror and $otor o the historical and

dialectical process. The proletariat as the su%*ect o thought in society destroys at one %low the

dile$$a o i$potence the dile$$a created %y the pure laws with their atalis$ and %y theethics o pure intentions.

Thus or Marxis$ the knowledge that capitalis$ is historically conditioned the pro%le$ o

accu$ulation- %eco$es crucial. The reason or this is that only this knowledge, only the unity o

theory and practice provide a real %asis or social revolution and the total transor$ation osociety. 0nly when this knowledge can %e seen as the product o this process can we close the

circle o the dialectical $ethod / and this analysis, too, ste$s ro$ Hegel.

1s early as her irst pole$ics with 'ernstein, @osa Luxe$%urg lays e$phasis on this essential

distinction %etween the total and the partial, the dialectical and the $echanical view o historywhether it %e opportunistic or terrorist-. 2Here lies the chie dierence,3 she explains,3

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 42/71

2%etween the 'lan#uist coups dXtat o a (resolute $inority) which always explode like pistol+

shots and as a result always co$e at the wrong $o$ent, and the con#uest o the real power o a

state %y the %road, class+conscious $ass o the people which itsel can only %e the product o theincipient collapse o %ourgeois society and which thereore %ears in itsel the econo$ic and

 political legiti$ation o its ti$ely appearance.3 1nd in her last work 4586 she writes in a si$ilar

vein 2The o%*ective tendency o capitalis$ towards that goal suices to aggravate the social and political conlicts within society to such an extent and so $uch earlier than was expected, that

they $ust %ring a%out the de$ise o the ruling syste$. 'ut these social and political conlicts are

the$selves ulti$ately only the product o the economic insta%ility o the capitalist syste$. Theirincreasing gravity springs ro$ this source in exact proportion as that insta%ility %eco$es acute.3

The proletariat is, then, at one and the sa$e ti$e the product o the per$anent crisis in

capitalis$ and the instru$ent o those tendencies which drive capitalis$ towards crisis. !n

Marx)s words 2The proletariat carries out the sentence which private property passes upon itsel %y its creation o a proletariat.Y4596 'y recognising its situation it acts. 'y co$%ating capitalis$ it

discovers its own place in society.

'ut the class consciousness o the proletariat, the truth o the process (as su%*ect) is itsel ar

ro$ sta%le and constant; it does not advance according to $echanical (laws). !t is theconsciousness o the dialectical process itsel it is likewise a dialectical concept. =or the active

and practical side o class consciousness, its true essence, can only %eco$e visi%le in its

authentic or$ when the historical process i$periously re#uires it to co$e into orce, i.e. whenan acute crisis in the econo$y drives it to action. 1t other ti$es it re$ains theoretical and latent,

corresponding to the latent and per$anent crisis o capitalis$45:6 it conronts the individual

#uestions and conlicts o the day with its de$ands, as ($ere) consciousness, as an (ideal su$),

in @osa Luxe$%urg)s phrase.

Marx had understood and descri%ed the proletariat)s struggle or reedo$ in ter$s o thedialectical unity o theory and practice. This i$plied that consciousness cannot exist on its own

either as (pure) theory, or as a si$ple postulate, a si$ple i$perative or nor$ o action. The postulate, too, $ust have a reality. That is to say, the $o$ent when the class consciousness o the

 proletariat %egins to articulate its de$ands, when it is (latent and theoretical), $ust also %e the

$o$ent when it creates a corresponding reality which will intervene actively in the total process.

The or$ taken %y the class consciousness o the proletariat is the $arty. @osa Luxe$%urg hadgrasped the spontaneous nature o revolutionary $ass actions earlier and $ore clearly than $any

others. 7hat she did, incidentally, was to e$phasise another aspect o the thesis advanced

earlier that these actions are the necessary product o the econo$ic process.- !t is no accident,

thereore, that she was also #uicker to grasp the role o the party in the revolution. 45>6 =or the$echanical vulgarisers the party was $erely a or$ o organisation / and the $ass $ove$ent,

the revolution, was likewise no $ore than a pro%le$ o organisation.

@osa Luxe$%urg perceived at a very early stage that the organisation is $uch $ore likely to %ethe eect than the cause o the revolutionary process, *ust as the proletariat can constitute itsel

as a class only in and through revolution. !n this process which it can neither provoke nor escape,

the Iarty is assigned the su%li$e role o bearer o the class consciousness o the proletariat and

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 43/71

the conscience o its historical vocation. The supericially $ore active and ($ore realistic) view

allocates to the party tasks concerned predo$inantly or even exclusively with organisation. "uch

a view is then reduced to an unrelieved atalis$ when conronted with the realities o revolution,whereas @osa Luxe$%urg)s analysis %eco$es the ount o true revolutionary activity. The Iarty

$ust ensure that 2in every phase and every aspect o the struggle the total su$ o the availa%le

 power o the proletariat that has already %een unleashed should %e $o%ilised and that it should %eexpressed in the ighting stance o the Iarty. The tactics o "ocial e$ocracy should always %e

$ore resolute and vigorous than re#uired %y the existing power relations, and never less.345?6 !t

Must i$$erse its own truth in the spontaneous $ass $ove$ent and raise it ro$ the depths oecono$ic necessity, where it was conceived, on to the heights o ree, conscious action. !n so

doing it will transor$ itsel in the $o$ent o the out%reak o revolution ro$ a party that $akes

de$ands to one that i$poses an eective reality.

This change ro$ de$and to reality %eco$es the lever o the truly class+oriented and trulyrevolutionary organisation o the proletariat. nowledge %eco$es action, theory %eco$es %attle

slogan, the $asses act in accordance with the slogans and *oin the ranks o the organised

vanguard $ore consciously, $ore steadastly and in greater nu$%ers. The correct slogans giverise organically to the pre$isses and possi%ilities o even the technical organisation o the

ighting proletariat.

Class consciousness is the (ethics) o the proletariat, the unity o its theory and its practice, the

 point at which the econo$ic necessity o its struggle or li%eration changes dialectically intoreedo$. 'y realising that the party is the historical e$%odi$ent and the active incarnation o

class consciousness, we see that it is also the incarnation o the ethics o the ighting proletariat.

This $ust deter$ine its politics. !ts politics $ay not always accord with the e$pirical reality o

the $o$ent; at such ti$es its slogans $ay %e ignored. 'ut the inelucta%le course o history willgive it its due. ven $ore, the $oral strength conerred %y the correct class consciousness will

 %ear ruit in ter$s o practical politics.

45B6

The true strength o the party is $oral it is ed %y the trust o the spontaneously revolutionary$asses who$ econo$ic conditions have orced into revolt. !t is nourished %y the eeling that the

 party is the o%*ectiication o their own will o%scure though this $ay %e to the$selves-, that it is

the visi%le and organised incarnation o their class consciousness. 0nly when the party has

ought or this trust and earned it can it %eco$e the leader o the revolution. =or only then willthe $asses spontaneously and instinctively press orward with all their energies towards the party

and towards their own class consciousness.

'y separating the insepara%le, the opportunists have %arred their own path to this knowledge, the

active sel+knowledge o the proletariat. Hence their leaders speak scornully, in the authentictones o the ree+thinking petty %ourgeoisie o the (religious aith) that is said to lie at the roots o 

'olshevis$ and revolutionary Marxis$. The accusation is a tacit conession o their own

i$potence. !n vain do they disguise their $oth+eaten dou%ts, %y cloaking their negativity in thesplendid $antle o a cool and o%*ective (scientiic $ethod). very word and gesture %etrays the

despair o the %est o the$ and the inner e$ptiness o the worst their co$plete divorce ro$ the

 proletariat, ro$ its path and ro$ its vocation. 7hat they call aith and seek to deprecate %yadding the epithet (religious) is nothing $ore nor less than the certainty that capitalis$ is

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 44/71

doo$ed and that / ulti$ately / the proletariat will %e victorious. There can %e no ($aterial)

guarantee o this certitude. !t can %e guaranteed $ethodologically / %y the dialectical $ethod.

1nd even this $ust %e tested and proved %y action, %y the revolution itsel, %y living and dyingor the revolution. 1 Marxist who cultivates the o%*ectivity o the acade$ic study is *ust as

reprehensi%le as the $an who %elieves that the victory o the world revolution can %e guaranteed

 %y the (laws o nature).

The unity o theory and practice exists not only in theory %ut also or practice. 7e have seen thatthe proletariat as a class can only con#uer and retain a hold on class consciousness and raise

itsel to the level o its / o%*ectively+given / historic task through conlict and action. !t is

likewise true that the party and the individual ighter can only really take possession o theirtheory i they are a%le to %ring this unity into their praxis. The so+called religious aith is nothing

$ore than the certitude that regardless o all te$porary deeats and set%acks, the historical

 process will co$e to ruition in our deeds and through our deeds.

Here too the opportunists ind the$selves conronted %y the dile$$a posed %y i$potence. They

argue that i the Co$$unists oresee (deeat) they $ust either desist ro$ every or$ o action or else %rand the$selves as unscrupulous adventurers, catastrophe$ongers and terrorists. !n their

intellectual and $oral degradation they are si$ply incapa%le o seeing themselves and theiraction as an aspect o the totality and o the process the (deeat) as the necessary prelude to

victory.

!t is characteristic o the unity o theory and practice in the lie work o @osa Luxe$%urg that the

unity o victory and deeat, individual ate and total process is the $ain thread running throughher theory and her lie. 1s early as her irst pole$ic against 'ernstein)s she argued that the

necessarily =premature( sei9ure o power  %y the proletariat was inevita%le. "he un$asked the

resulting opportunist ear and lack o aith in revolution as 2political nonsense which starts ro$

the assu$ption that society progresses $echanically and which i$agines a deinite point in ti$eexternal to and unconnected with the class struggle in which the class struggle will %e won3. !t is

this clear+sighted certitude that guides @osa Luxe$%urg in the ca$paign she waged or thee$ancipation o the proletariat its econo$ic and political e$ancipation ro$ physical %ondage

under capitalis$, and its ideological e$ancipation ro$ its spiritual %ondage under opportunis$.

1s she was the great spiritual leader o the proletariat her chie struggles were ought against the

latter ene$y / the $ore dangerous oe as it was harder to deeat. Her death at the hands o her %itterest ene$ies, Joske and "cheide$ann, is, logically, the crowning pinnacle o her thought

and lie. Theoretically she had predicted the deeat o the Kanuary rising years %eore it took

 place; tactically she oresaw it at the $o$ent o action. <et she re$ained consistently on the sideo the $asses and shared their ate. That is to say, the unity o theory and practice was preserved

in her actions with exactly the sa$e consistency and with exactly the sa$e logic as that which

earned her the en$ity o her $urderers the opportunists o "ocial e$ocracy.

Kanuary 5D85.

 

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 45/71

Ta%le o Contents Q Lukacs 1rchive 

Georg Lukacs History & Class Consciousness 5D8E

&lass &ons'io(sness

7ritten 5D8E;

"ource History & Class Consciousness;

Translator @odney Livingstone;Iu%lisher Merlin Iress, 5D?B;

Transcription and HTML Mark+up 1ndy 'lunden.

The #uestion is not what goal is envisaged or  the ti$e %eing %y this or that $e$%er o the proletariat, or even %y the proletariat as a whole. The #uestion is what is the proletariat and what

course o action will it %e orced historically to take in conor$ity with its own nature.

Marx The @oly Family.

M1@O)" chie work %reaks o *ust as he is a%out to e$%ark on the deinition o class. Thiso$ission was to have serious conse#uences %oth or the theory and the practice o the proletariat.

=or on this vital point the later $ove$ent was orced to %ase itsel on interpretations, on the

collation o occasional utterances %y Marx and ngels and on the independent extrapolation and

application o their $ethod. !n Marxis$ the division o society into classes is deter$ined %y position within the process o production. 'ut what, then, is the $eaning o class consciousnessA

The #uestion at once %ranches out into a series o closely interrelated pro%le$s. =irst o all, howare we to understand class consciousness in theory-A "econd, what is the practical- unction o

class consciousness, so understood, in the context o the class struggleA This leads to the urther

#uestion is the pro%le$ o class consciousness a (general) sociological pro%le$ or does it $eanone thing or the proletariat and another or every other class to have e$erged hithertoA 1nd

lastly, is class consciousness ho$ogeneous in nature and unction or can we discern dierent

gradations and levels in itA 1nd i so, what are their practical i$plications or the class struggle

o the proletariatA

1

!n his cele%rated account o historical $aterialis$ 456 ngels proceeds ro$ the assu$ption that

although the essence o history consists in the act that 2nothing happens without a conscious

 purpose or an intended ai$3, to understand history it is necessary to go urther than this. =or onthe one hand, 2the $any individual wills active in history or the $ost part produce results #uite

other than those intended / oten #uite the opposite; their motives, thereore, in relation to thetotal result are li'ewise o only secondary importance. 0n the other hand, the urther #uestion

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 46/71

arises what driving orces in turn stand behind these motives 7hat are the historical causes

which transor$ the$selves into these $otives in the %rain o the actorsA3 He goes on to argue

that these driving orces ought the$selves to %e deter$ined in particular those which 2set in$otion great $asses, whole peoples and again whole classes o the people; and which create. alasting action resulting in a great transormation.3 The essence o scientiic Marxis$ consists,

then, in the realisation that the real $otor orces o history are independent o $an)spsychological- consciousness o the$.

1t a $ore pri$itive stage o knowledge this independence takes the or$ o the %elie that these

orces %elong, as it were, to nature and that in the$ and in their causal interactions it is possi%le

to discern the (eternal) laws o nature. 1s Marx says o %ourgeois thought 2Man)s relections onthe or$s o social lie and conse#uently also his scientiic analysis o those or$s, take a course

directly opposite to that o their actual historical develop$ent. He %egins post estu$ with the

results o the process o develop$ent ready to hand %eore hi$. The characters ... have alreadyac#uired the sta%ility o natural sel+understood or$s o social lie, %eore $an seeks to decipher 

not their historical character or in his eyes they are i$$uta%le- %ut their $eaning.3 486

This is a dog$a whose $ost i$portant spokes$en can %e ound in the political theory o

classical Ger$an philosophy and in the econo$ic theory o 1da$ "$ith and @icardo. Marxopposes to the$ a critical philosophy, a theory o theory and a consciousness o consciousness.

This critical philosophy i$plies a%ove all historical criticis$. !t dissolves the rigid, unhistorical,

natural appearance o social institutions; it reveals their historical origins and shows thereorethat they are su%*ect to history in every +respect including historical decline. Conse#uently

history does not $erely unold within the terrain $apped out %y these institutions. !t does not

resolve itsel into the evolution o contents, o  $en and situations, etc., while the principles o

society re$ain eternally valid. Jor are these institutions the goal to which all history aspires,such that when they are realised history will have ulilled her $ission and will then %e at an end.

0n the contrary, history is precisely the history o these institutions, o the changes they undergoas institutions which %ring $en together in societies. "uch institutions start %y controllingecono$ic relations %etween $en and go on to per$eate all hu$an relations and hence also

$an)s relations with hi$sel and with nature, etc.-.

1t this point %ourgeois thought $ust co$e up against an insupera%le o%stacle, or its starting+

 point and its goal are always, i not always consciously, an apologia or the existing order othings or at least the proo o their i$$uta%ility. 496 2Thus there has %een history, %ut there is no

longer any,3 4:6 Marx o%serves with reerence to %ourgeois econo$ics, a dictu$ which applies

with e#ual orce to all atte$pts %y %ourgeois thinkers to understand the process o history. !t hasoten %een pointed out that this is also one o the deects o Hegel)s philosophy o history.- 1s a

result, while %ourgeois thought is indeed a%le to conceive o history as a pro%le$, it re$ains anintractable pro%le$. ither it is orced to a%olish the process o history and regard theinstitutions o the present as eternal laws o nature which or ($ysterious) reasons and in a

$anner wholly at odds with the principles o a rational science were held to have ailed to

esta%lish the$selves ir$ly, or indeed at all, in the past. This is characteristic o %ourgeois

sociology.- 0r else, everything $eaningul or purposive is %anished ro$ history. !t then %eco$es i$possi%le to advance %eyond the $ere (individuality) o the various epochs and their

social and hu$an representatives. History $ust then insist with @anke that every age is 2e#ually

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 47/71

close to God3, i.e. has attained an e#ual degree o perection and that+or #uite dierent reasons+

there is no such thing as historical develop$ent.

!n the irst case it ceases to %e possi%le to understand the origin o social institutions. 4>6 Theo%*ects o history appear as the o%*ects o i$$uta%le, eternal laws o nature. History %eco$es

ossilised in a ormalism incapa%le o co$prehending that the real nature o socio+historicalinstitutions is that they consist o relations between men. 0n the contrary, $en %eco$e estranged

ro$ this, the true source o historical understanding and cut o ro$ it %y an un%ridgea%le gul.1s Marx points out, 4?6 people ail to realise 2that these deinite social relations are *ust as $uch

the products o $en as linen. lax, etc.3.

!n the second case, history is transor$ed into the irrational rule o %lind orces which ise$%odied at %est in the (spirit o the people) or in (great $en). !t can thereore only %e descri%ed

 prag$atically %ut it cannot %e rationally understood. !ts only possi%le organisation would %e

aesthetic, as i it were a work o art. 0r else, as in the philosophy o history o the antians, it

$ust %e seen as the instru$ent, senseless in itsel, %y $eans o which ti$eless, supra+historical,

ethical principles are realised.

Marx resolves this dile$$a %y exposing it as an illusion. The dile$$a $eans only that the

contradictions o the capitalist syste$ o production are relected in these $utually inco$pati%le

accounts o the sa$e o%*ect. =or in this historiography with its search or (sociological) laws orits or$alistic rationale, we ind the relection o $an)s plight in %ourgeois society and o his

helpless enslave$ent %y the orces o production. 2To the$, their own social action”, Marx

re$arks, 4B6 2takes the or$ o the action o o%*ects which rule the producers instead o %eingruled %y the$3. This law was expressed $ost clearly and coherently in the purely natural and

rational laws o classical econo$ics. Marx retorted with the de$and or a historical criti#ue o

econo$ics which resolves the totality o the reiied o%*ectivities o social and econo$ic lie into

relations between men. Capital and with it every or$ in which the national econo$y o%*ectivesitsel is, according to Marx, 2not a thing %ut a social relation %etween persons $ediated through

things3. 46

However, %y reducing the o%*ectivity o the social institutions so hostile to $an to relations %etween $en, Marx also does away with the alse i$plications o the irrationalist and

individualist principle, i.e. the other side o the dile$$a. =or to eli$inate the o%*ectivity

attri%uted %oth to social institutions ini$ical to $an and to their historical evolution $eans therestoration o this o%*ectivity to their underlying %asis, to the relations %etween $en; it does not

involve the eli$ination o laws and o%*ectivity independent o the will o $an and in particular

the wills and thoughts o individual $en. !t si$ply $eans that this o%*ectivity is the sel+

o%*ectiication o hu$an society at a particular stage in its develop$ent; its laws hold good onlywithin the ra$ework o the historical context which produced the$ and which is in turn

deter$ined %y the$.

!t $ight look as though %y dissolving the dile$$a in this $anner we were denyingconsciousness any decisive role in the process o history. !t is true that the conscious relexes o

the dierent stages o econo$ic growth re$ain historical acts o great i$portance; it is true that

while dialectical $aterialis$ is itsel the product o this process, it does not deny that $en

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 48/71

 peror$ their historical deeds the$selves and that they do so consciously. 'ut as ngels

e$phasises in a letter to Mehring, 4D6 this consciousness is alse. However, the dialectical $ethod

does not per$it us si$ply to proclai$ the (alseness) o this consciousness and to persist in aninlexi%le conrontation o true and alse. 0n the contrary, it re#uires us to investigate this (alse

consciousness) concretely as an aspect o the historical totality and as a stage in the historical

 process.

0 course %ourgeois historians also atte$pt such concrete analyses; indeed they reproachhistorical $aterialists with violating the concrete uni#ueness o historical events. 7here they go

wrong is in their %elie that the concrete can %e located in the e$pirical individual o history

)individual) here can reer to an individual $an, class or people- and in his e$pirically givenand hence psychological or $ass+psychological- consciousness. 1nd *ust when they i$agine

that they have discovered the $ost concrete thing o all  society as a concrete totality, the syste$

o production at a given point in history and the resulting division o society into classes / theyare in act at the urthest re$ove ro$ it. !n $issing the $ark they $istake so$ething wholly

a%stract or the concrete. 2These relations,3 Marx states, 2are not those %etween one individual

and another, %ut %etween worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord, etc. li$inate these relationsand you a%olish the whole o society; your Iro$etheus will then %e nothing $ore than a spectre

without ar$s or legs. ...3 45E6

Concrete analysis $eans then the relation to society as a whole. =or only when this relation is

esta%lished does the consciousness o their existence that $en have at any given ti$e e$erge inall its essential characteristics. !t appears, on the one hand, as so$ething which is subjectively *ustiied in the social and historical situation, as so$ething which can and should %e understood,

i.e. as (right). 1t the sa$e ti$e, objectively, it %y+passes the essence o the evolution o society

and ails to pinpoint it and express it ade#uately. That is to say, o%*ectively, it appears as a (alseconsciousness). 0n the other hand, we $ay see the sa$e consciousness as so$ething which ails

 subjectively to reach its sel+appointed goals, while urthering and realising the objective ai$s osociety o which it is ignorant and which it did not choose.

This twoold dialectical deter$ination o (alse consciousness) constitutes an analysis ar

re$oved ro$ the naive description o what $en in act thought, elt and wanted at any $o$ent

in history and ro$ any given point in the class structure. ! do not wish to deny the great

i$portance o this, %ut it re$ains ater all $erely the material o genuine historical analysis. Therelation with concrete totality and the dialectical deter$inants arising ro$ it transcend pure

description and yield the category o o%*ective possi%ility. 'y relating consciousness to the whole

o society it %eco$es possi%le to iner the thoughts and eelings which $en would have in a particular situation i they were able to assess %oth it and the interests arising ro$ it in their

i$pact on i$$ediate action and on the whole structure o society. That is to say, it would %e

 possi%le to iner the thoughts and eelings appropriate to their o%*ective situation. The nu$%er osuch situations is not unli$ited in any society. However $uch detailed researches are a%le to

reine social typologies there will always %e a nu$%er o clearly distinguished %asic types whose

characteristics are deter$ined %y the types o position availa%le in the process o production.

 Jow class consciousness consists in act o the appropriate and rational reactions (i$puted)4 9ugerechnet 6 to a particular typical position in the process o production.4556 This consciousness

is, thereore, neither the su$ nor the average o what is thought or elt %y the single individuals

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 49/71

who $ake up the class. 1nd yet the historically signiicant actions o the class as a whole are

deter$ined in the last resort %y this consciousness and not %y the thought o the individual / and

these actions can %e understood only %y reerence to this consciousness.

This analysis esta%lishes right ro$ the start the distance that separates class consciousness ro$

the e$pirically given, and ro$ the psychologically descri%a%le and explica%le ideas which $enor$ a%out their situation in lie. 'ut it is not enough *ust to state that this distance exists or even

to deine its i$plications in a or$al and general way. 7e $ust discover, irstly, whether it is a pheno$enon that diers according to the $anner in which the various classes are related to

society as a whole and whether the dierences are so great as to produce #ualitative distinctions. And  we $ust discover, secondly, the practical signiicance o these dierent possi%le relations %etween the o%*ective econo$ic totality, the i$puted class consciousness and the real,

 psychological thoughts o $en a%out their lives. 7e $ust discover, in short, the practical,historical unction o class consciousness.

0nly ater such preparatory or$ulations can we %egin to exploit the category o o%*ective

 possi%ility syste$atically. The irst #uestion we $ust ask is how ar is it intact possi%le to discernthe whole econo$y o a society ro$ inside itA !t is essential to transcend the li$itations o

 particular individuals caught up in their own narrow pre*udices. 'ut it is no less vital not tooverstep the rontier ixed or the$ %y the econo$ic structure o society and esta%lishing their

 position in it. 4586 @egarded a%stractly and or$ally, then, class consciousness i$plies a class+

conditioned unconsciousness o ones own socio+historical and econo$ic condition. 4596 Thiscondition is given as a deinite structural relation, a deinite or$al nexus which appears to

govern the whole o lie. The (alseness), the illusion i$plicit in this situation is in no sense

ar%itrary; it is si$ply the intellectual relex o the o%*ective econo$ic structure. Thus, or

exa$ple, 2the value or price o la%our+power takes on the appearance o the price or value ola%our itsel ...3 and 2the illusion is created that the totality is paid la%our.... !n contrast to that,

under slavery even that portion o la%our which is paid or appears unpaid or.3

45:6

 Jow itre#uires the $ost painstaking historical analysis to use the category o o%*ective possi%ility so asto isolate the conditions in which this illusion can %e exposed and a real connection with the

totality esta%lished. =or i ro$ the vantage point o a particular class the totality o existing

society is not visi%le; i a class thinks the thoughts i$puta%le to it and which %ear upon itsinterests right through to their logical conclusion and yet ails to strike at the heart o that totality,

then such a class is doo$ed to play only a su%ordinate role. !t can never inluence the course o

history in either a conservative or progressive direction. "uch classes are nor$ally conde$ned to passivity, to an unsta%le oscillation %etween the ruling and the revolutionary classes, and i

 perchance they do erupt then such explosions are purely ele$ental and ai$less. They $ay win a

ew %attles %ut they are doo$ed to ulti$ate deeat.

=or a class to %e ripe or hege$ony $eans that its interests and consciousness ena%le it toorganise the whole o society in accordance with those interests. The crucial #uestion in every

class struggle is this which class possesses this capacity and this consciousness at the decisive

$o$ent A This does not preclude the use o orce. !t does not $ean that the class+interests

destined to prevail and thus to uphold the interests o society as a whole can %e guaranteed anauto$atic victory. 0n the contrary, such a transer o power can oten only %e %rought a%out %y

the $ost ruthless use o orce as e.g. the pri$itive accu$ulation o capital-. 'ut it oten turns

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 50/71

out that #uestions o class consciousness prove to %e decisive in *ust those situations where orce

is unavoida%le and where classes are locked in a lie+and+death+struggle. Thus the noted

Hungarian Marxist rwin "Fa%o is $istaken in criticising ngels or $aintaining that the GreatIeasant 7ar o 5>8>- was essentially a reactionary $ove$ent. "Fa%o argues that the peasants)

revolt was suppressed only %y the ruthless use o orce and that its deeat was not grounded in

socioecono$ic actors and in the class consciousness o the peasants. He overlooks the act thatthe deepest reason or the weakness o the peasantry and the superior strength o the princes is to

 %e sought in class consciousness. ven the $ost cursory student o the $ilitary aspects o the

Ieasants) 7ar can easily convince hi$sel o this.

!t $ust not %e thought, however, that all classes ripe or hege$ony have a class consciousnesswith the sa$e inner structure. verything hinges on the extent to which they can %eco$e

conscious o the actions they need to peror$ in order to o%tain and organise power. The

#uestion then %eco$es how ar does the class concerned peror$ the actions history hasi$posed on it (consciously) or (unconsciously)A 1nd is that consciousness (true) or (alse). These

distinctions are %y no $eans acade$ic. uite apart ro$ pro%le$s o culture where such issures

and dissonances are crucial, in all practical $atters too the ate o a class depends on its a%ility toelucidate and solve the pro%le$s with which history conronts it. 1nd here it %eco$es

transparently o%vious that class consciousness is concerned neither with the thoughts o

individuals, however advanced, nor with the state o scientiic knowledge. =or exa$ple, it is

#uite clear that ancient society was %roken econo$ically %y the li$itations o a syste$ %uilt onslavery. 'ut it is e#ually clear that neither the ruling classes nor the classes that re%elled against

the$ in the na$e o revolution or reor$ could perceive this. !n conse#uence the practical

e$ergence o these pro%le$s $eant that the society was necessarily and irre$edia%ly doo$ed.

The situation. is even clearer in the case o the $odern %ourgeoisie, which, ar$ed with itsknowledge o the workings o econo$ics, clashed with eudal and a%solutist society. =or the

 %ourgeoisie was #uite una%le to perect its unda$ental science, its own science o classes theree on which it oundered was its ailure to discover even a theoretical solution to the pro%le$o crises. The act that a scientiically accepta%le solution does exist is o no avail. =or to accept

that solution, even in theory, would %e tanta$ount to o%serving society rom a class standpointother than that o the bourgeoisie. 1nd no class can do that / unless it is willing to a%dicate its power reely. Thus the %arrier which converts the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie into

(alse) consciousness is o%*ective; it is the class situation itsel. !t is the o%*ective result o the

econo$ic set+up, and is neither ar%itrary, su%*ective nor psychological. The class consciousnesso the %ourgeoisie $ay well %e a%le to relect all the pro%le$s o organisation entailed %y its

hege$ony and %y the capitalist transor$ation and penetration o total production. 'ut it

 %eco$es o%scured as soon as it is called upon to ace pro%le$s that re$ain within its *urisdiction

 %ut which point %eyond the li$its o capitalis$. The discovery o the natural laws) o econo$icsis pure light in co$parison with $edieval eudalis$ or even the $ercantilis$ o the transitional

 period, %ut %y an internal dialectical twist they %eca$e 2natural laws %ased on the

unconsciousness o those who are involved in the$3. 45>6

!t would %e %eyond the scope o these pages to advance urther and atte$pt to construct ahistorical and syste$atic typology o the possi%le degrees o class consciousness. That would

re#uire / in the irst instance / an exact study o the point in the total process o production at

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 51/71

which the interests o the various classes are $ost i$$ediately and vitally involved. "econdly,

we would have to show how ar it would %e in the interest o any given class to go %eyond this

i$$ediacy, to annul and transcend its i$$ediate interest %y seeing it as a actor within a totality.1nd lastly, what is the nature o the totality that is then achievedA How ar does it really e$%race

the true totality o productionA !t is #uite evident that the #uality and structure o class

consciousness $ust %e very dierent i, e.g. it re$ains stationary at the separation oconsu$ption ro$ production as with the @o$an Lu$pen proletariat? or i it represents the

or$ation o the interests o circulation as with $erchant capital-. 1lthough we cannot e$%ark

on a syste$atic typology o the various points o view it can %e seen ro$ the oregoing thatthese speci$ens o (alse) consciousness dier ro$ each other %oth #ualitatively, structurally

and in a $anner that is crucial or the activity o the classes in society.

2

!t ollows ro$ the a%ove that or pre+capitalist epochs and or the %ehaviour o $any strata

within capitalis$ whose econo$ic roots lie in pre+capitalis$, class consciousness is una%le to

achieve co$plete clarity and to inluence the course o history consciously.

This is true a%ove all %ecause class interests in pre+capitalist society never achieve ull

econo$ic- articulation. Hence the structuring o society into castes and estates $eans that

econo$ic ele$ents are ine!tricably *oined to political and religious actors. !n contrast to this,the rule o the %ourgeoisie $eans the a%olition o the estates+syste$ and this leads to the

organisation o society along class lines. !n $any countries vestiges o the eudal syste$ still

survive, %ut this does not detract ro$ the validity o this o%servation.-

This situation has its roots in the proound dierence %etween capitalist and pre+capitalist

econo$ics. The $ost striking distinction, and the one that directly concerns us, is that pre+

capitalist societies are $uch less cohesive than capitalis$. The various parts are $uch $ore sel+suicient and less closely interrelated than in capitalis$. Co$$erce plays a s$aller role insociety, the various sectors were $ore autono$ous as in the case o village co$$unes- or else

 plays no part at all in the econo$ic lie o the co$$unity and in the process o production as

was true o large nu$%ers o citiFens in Greece and @o$e-. !n such circu$stances the state, i.e.the organised unity, re$ains insecurely anchored in the real lie o society. 0ne sector o society

si$ply lives out its (natural) existence in what a$ounts to a total independence o the ate o the

state. 2The si$plicity o the organisation or production in these sel+suicient co$$unities thatconstantly reproduce the$selves in the sa$e or$, and when accidentally destroyed, spring up

again on the spot and with the sa$e na$e / this si$plicity supplies the key to the secret o the

i$$uta%ility o 1siatic societies, an i$$uta%ility in such striking contrast with the constant

dissolution and resounding o 1siatic states, and the never+ceasing changes o dynasty. Thestructure o the econo$ic ele$ents o society re$ains untouched %y the stor$+clouds o the

 political sky.3 45?6

<et another sector o society is / econo$ically / co$pletely parasitic. =or this sector the statewith its power apparatus is not, as it is or the ruling classes under capitalis$, a $eans where%y

to put into practice the principles o its econo$ic power / i need %e with the aid o orce. Jor is

it the instru$ent it uses to create the conditions or its econo$ic do$inance as with $odern

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 52/71

colonialis$-. That is to say, the state is not a mediation o the econo$ic control o society it is

that unmediated dominance itsel. This is true not $erely in cases o the straightorward thet o

land or slaves, %ut also in so+called peaceul econo$ic relations. Thus in connection with la%our+rent Marx says 2nder such circu$stances the surplus la%our can %e extorted ro$ the$ or the

 %eneit o the no$inal landowner only %y other than econo$ic pressure.3 !n 1sia 2rent and taxes

coincide, or rather there is no tax other than this or$ o ground+rent3.45B6

ven co$$erce is not a%le, in the or$s it assu$es in pre+capitalist societies, to $ake decisiveinroads on the %asic structure o society. !ts i$pact re$ains supericial and the process o

 production a%ove all in relation to la%our, re$ains %eyond its control. 21 $erchant could %uy

every co$$odity, %ut la%our as a co$$odity he could not %uy. He existed only on suerance, asa dealer in the products o the handicrats.3 456

espite all this, every such society constitutes an econo$ic unity. The only #uestion that arises is

whether this unity ena%les the individual sectors o society to relate to society as a whole in such

a way that their i$puted consciousness can assu$e an econo$ic or$. Marx e$phasises 45D6 that

in Greece and @o$e the class struggle 2chiely took the or$ o a conlict %etween de%tors andcreditors3. 'ut he also $akes the urther, very valid point 2Jevertheless, the $oney+relationship

 / and the relationship o creditor to de%tor is one o $oney / relects only the deeper+lyingantagonis$ %etween the econo$ic conditions o existence.3 Historical $aterialis$ showed that

this relection was no $ore than a relection, %ut we $ust go on to ask was it at all possi%le /

o%*ectively / or the classes in such a society to %eco$e conscious o the econo$ic %asis o theseconlicts and o the econo$ic pro%le$s with which the society was alictedA 7as it not

inevita%le that these conlicts and pro%le$s should assu$e either natural ( religious or$s) 48E6 or

else political and legal ones, depending on circu$stances A

The division o society into estates or castes $eans in eect that conceptually and

organisationally these (natural) or$s are esta%lished without their econo$ic %asis ever %eco$ing conscious. !t $eans that there is no $ediation %etween the pure traditionalis$ o

natural growth and the legal institutions it assu$es. 4856 !n accordance with the looser econo$icstructure o society, the political and legal institutions here the division into estates, privileges,

etc.-, have dierent unctions o%*ectively and su%*ectively ro$ those exercised under capitalis$.

!n capitalis$ these institutions $erely i$ply the sta%ilisation o purely econo$ic orces so that /

as arner has a%ly de$onstrated 4886  / they re#uently adapt the$selves to changed econo$icstructures without changing the$selves in or$ or content. 'y contrast, in pre+capitalist societies

legal institutions intervene substantively in the interplay o econo$ic orces. !n act there are no

 purely econo$ic categories to appear or to %e given legal or$ and according to Marx,econo$ic categories are 2or$s o existence, deter$inations o lie3-. 4896 cono$ic and legal

categories are o%*ectively and substantively so interwoven as to be inseparable. Consider here

the instances cited earlier o la%our+rent, and taxes, o slavery, etc.- !n Hegel)s parlance theecono$y has not even o%*ectively reached the stage o %eing+or+itsel. There is thereore no

 possi%le position within such a society ro$ which the econo$ic %asis o all social relations

could %e $ade conscious.

This is not o course to deny the o%*ective econo$ic oundations o social institutions. 0n thecontrary, the history o 4eudal6 estates shows very clearly that what in origin had %een a (natural)

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 53/71

econo$ic existence cast into sta%le or$s %egins gradually to disintegrate as a result o

su%terranean, (unconscious) econo$ic develop$ent. That is to say, it ceases to %e a real unity.

Their econo$ic content destroys the unity o their *uridical or$. 1$ple proo o this isurnished %oth %y ngels in his analysis o the class struggles o the @eor$ation. period and %y

Cunow in his discussion o the =rench @evolution.- However, despite this conlict %etween

 *uridical or$ and econo$ic content, the *uridical privilege+creating- or$s retain a great andoten a%solutely crucial i$portance or the consciousness o estates in the process o

disintegration. =or the or$ o the estates conceals the connection %etween the / real %ut

(unconscious) / econo$ic existence o the estate and the econo$ic totality o society. !t ixatesconsciousness directly on its privileges as in the case o the knights during the @eor$ation- or

else / no less directly / on the particular ele$ent o society ro$ which the privileges e$anated

as in the case o the guilds-.

ven when an estate has disintegrated, even when its $e$%ers have been absorbedeconomically into a number o dierent classes, it  still retains this o%*ectively unreal-

ideological coherence. =or the relation to the whole created %y the consciousness o one)s status

is not directed to the real, living econo$ic unity %ut to a past state o society as constituted %y the privileges accorded to the estates. "tatus / consciousness / a real historical actor $asks class

consciousness; in act it prevents it ro$ e$erging at all. 1 like pheno$enon can %e o%served

under capitalis$ in the case o all (privileged) groups whose class situation lacks any i$$ediate

econo$ic %ase. The a%ility o such a class to adapt itsel to the real econo$ic develop$ent can %e $easured %y the extent to which it succeeds in (capitalising) itsel, i.e. transor$ing its

 privileges into econo$ic and capitalist or$s o control as was the case with the great

landowners-.

Thus class consciousness has #uite a dierent relation to history in pre+capitalist and capitalist periods. !n the or$er case the classes could only %e deduced ro$ the i$$ediately given

historical reality by the methods o historical materialism. !n capitalis$ they the$selvesconstitute this i$$ediately given historical reality. !t is thereore no accident that as ngels toohas pointed out- this knowledge o history only %eca$e possi%le with the advent o capitalis$.

 Jot only / as ngels %elieved / %ecause o the greater si$plicity o capitalis$ in contrast to the

(co$plex and concealed relations) o earlier ages. 'ut pri$arily %ecause only with capitalis$does econo$ic class interest e$erge in all its starkness as the $otor o history. !n pre+capitalist

 periods $an could never %eco$e conscious not even %y virtue o an (i$puted) consciousness- o 

the 2true driving orces which stand %ehind the $otives o hu$an actions in history3. Theyre$ained hidden %ehind $otives and were in truth the %lind orces o history. !deological actors

do not $erely ($ask) econo$ic interests, they are not $erely the %anners and slogans they are

the parts, the co$ponents o which the real struggle is $ade. 0 course, i historical $aterialis$

is deployed to discover the sociological meaning o these struggles, econo$ic interests willdou%tless %e revealed as the decisive actors in any e!planation.

'ut there is still an un%ridgea%le gul %etween this and capitalis$ where econo$ic actors are

not concealed (%ehind) consciousness %ut are present in consciousness itsel al%eit

unconsciously or repressed-. 7ith capitalis$, with the a%olition o the eudal estates and with thecreation o a society with a purely economic articulation, class consciousness arrived at the point

where it could become conscious. =ro$ then on social conlict was relected in an ideological

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 54/71

struggle or consciousness and or the veiling or the exposure o the class character o society.

'ut the act that this conlict %eca$e possi%le points orward to the dialectical contradictions and

the internal dissolution o pure class society. !n Hegel)s words, 27hen philosophy paints itsgloo$y picture a or$ o lie has grown old. !t cannot %e re*uvenated %y the gloo$y picture, %ut

only understood. 0nly when dusk starts to all does the owl o Minerva spread its wings and ly.Y

3

'ourgeoisie and proletariat are the only pure classes in %ourgeois society. They are the onlyclasses whose existence and develop$ent are entirely dependent on the course taken %y the

$odern evolution o production and only ro$ the vantage point o these classes can a plan or

the total organisation o society even be imagined. The outlook o the other classes petty %ourgeois or peasants- is a$%iguous or sterile %ecause their existence is not %ased exclusively on

their role in the capitalist syste$ o production %ut is indissolu%ly linked with the vestiges o

eudal society. Their ai$, thereore, is not to advance capitalis$ or to transcend it, %ut to reverse

its action or at least to prevent it ro$ developing ully. Their class interest concentrates on

 symptoms o development  and not on develop$ent itsel, and on ele$ents o society rather thanon the construction o society as a whole.

The #uestion o consciousness $ay $ake its appearance in ter$s o the o%*ectives chosen or in

ter$s o action, as or instance in the case o the petty %ourgeoisie. This class lives at least in partin the capitalist %ig city and every aspect o its existence is directly exposed to the inluence o

capitalis$. Hence it cannot possi%ly re$ain wholly unaected %y the act o class conlict

 %etween %ourgeoisie and proletariat. 'ut as a 2transitional class in which the interests o twoother classes %eco$e si$ultaneously %lunted ...3 it will i$agine itsel 2to %e a%ove all class

antagonis$s3. 48:6 1ccordingly it will search or ways where%y it will 2not indeed eli$inate the

two extre$es o capital and wage la%our, %ut will weaken their antagonis$ and transor$ it into

har$ony3.

48>6

 !n all decisions crucial or society its actions will %e irrelevant and it will %e orcedto ight or %oth sides in turn %ut always without consciousness. !n so doing its own o%*ectives /

which exist exclusively in its own consciousness / $ust %eco$e progressively weakened andincreasingly divorced ro$ social action. lti$ately they will assu$e purely (ideological) or$s

The petty %ourgeoisie will only %e a%le to play an active role in history as long as these

o%*ectives happen to coincide with the real econo$ic interests o capitalis$. This was the case

with the a%olition o the eudal estates during the =rench @evolution. 7ith the ulil$ent o this$ission its utterances, which or the $ost part re$ain unchanged in or$, %eco$e $ore and

$ore re$ote ro$ real events and turn inally into $ere caricatures this was true, e.g. o the

Kaco%inis$ o the Montagne 5:+>5-.

This isolation ro$ society as a whole has its repercussions on the internal structure o the classand its organisational potential. This can %e seen $ost clearly in the develop$ent o the

 peasantry. Marx says on this point 48?6 2The s$all+holding peasants or$ a vast $ass whose

$e$%ers live in si$ilar conditions %ut without entering into $aniold relations with each other.Their $ode o production isolates the$ ro$ one another instead o %ringing the$ into $utual

intercourse.... very single peasant a$ily ... thus ac#uires its $eans o lie $ore through

exchange with nature than in intercourse with society.... !n so ar as $illions o a$ilies liveunder econo$ic conditions o existence that separate their $ode o lie, their interests and their

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 55/71

culture ro$ those o other classes and place the$ in opposition to the$, they constitute a class.

!n so ar as there is only a local connection %etween the s$allholding peasants, and the identity

o their interests %egets no co$$unity, no national unity and no political organisation, they donot constitute a class.3 Hence e!ternal upheavals, such as war, revolution in the towns, etc. are

needed %eore these, $asses can coalesce in a uniied $ove$ent, and even then they are

incapa%le o organising it and supplying it with slogans and a positive direction corresponding totheir own interests.

7hether these $ove$ents will %e progressive as in the =rench @evolution o 5BD or the

@ussian @evolution o 5D5B-, or reactionary as with Japoleon)s coup d)Xtat- will depend on the

 position o the other classes involved in the conlict, and on the level o consciousness o the parties that lead the$. =or this reason, too, the ideological or$ taken %y the class consciousness

o the peasants changes its content $ore re#uently than that o other classes this is %ecause it is

always %orrowed ro$ elsewhere.

Hence parties that %ase the$selves wholly or in part on this class consciousness always lack

really ir$ and secure support in critical situations as was true o the "ocialist @evolutionariesin 5D5B and 5D5-. This explains why it is possi%le or peasant conlicts to %e ought out under

opposing lags. Thus it is highly characteristic o %oth 1narchis$ and the (class consciousness o the peasantry that a nu$%er o counter+revolutionary re%ellions and uprisings o the $iddle and

upper strata o the peasantry in @ussia should have ound the anarchist view o society to %e a

satisying ideology. 7e cannot really speak o class consciousness in the case o these classes i,indeed, we can, even speak o the$ as classes in the strict Marxist sense o the ter$- or a ull

consciousness o their situation would reveal to the$ the hopelessness o their particularise

strivings in the ace o the inevita%le course o events. Consciousness and sel+interest then aremutually incompatible in this instance. 1nd as class consciousness was deined in ter$s o the pro%le$s o i$puting class interests the ailure o their class consciousness to develop in the

i$$ediately given historical reality %eco$es co$prehensi%le philosophically.

7ith the %ourgeoisie, also, class consciousness stands in opposition to class interest. 'ut here theantagonis$ is not contradictory but dialectical.

The distinction %etween the two $odes o contradiction $ay %e %riely descri%ed in this way in

the case o the other classes, a class consciousness is prevented ro$ e$erging %y their position

within the process o production and the interests this generates. !n the case o the %ourgeoisie,however, these actors co$%ine to produce a class consciousness %ut one which is cursed %y its

very nature with the tragic ate o developing an insolu%le contradiction at the very Fenith o its

 powers. 1s a result o this contradiction it $ust annihilate itsel.

The tragedy o the %ourgeoisie is relected historically in the act that even %eore it had deeatedits predecessor, eudalis$, its new ene$y, the proletariat, had appeared on the scene. Iolitically,

it %eca$e evident when, at the $o$ent o victory, the (reedo$) in whose na$e the %ourgeoisie

had *oined %attle wit i eudalis$, was transor$ed into a new repressiveness. "ociologically, the %ourgeoisie did everything in its power to eradicate the act o class conlict ro$ the

consciousness o society, even though class conlict had only e$erged in its purity and %eca$e

esta%lished as an historical act with the advent o capitalis$. !deologically, we see the sa$e

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 56/71

contradiction in the act that the %ourgeoisie endowed the individual with an unprecedented

i$portance, %ut at the sa$e ti$e that sa$e individuality was annihilated %y the econo$ic

conditions to which it was su%*ected, %y the reiication created %y co$$odity production.

1ll these contradictions, and the list $ight %e extended indeinitely, are only the relection o the

deepest contradictions in capitalis$ itsel as they appear in the consciousness o the %ourgeoisiein accordance with their position in the total syste$ o production. =or this reason they appear as

dialectical contradictions in the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie. They do not $erelyrelect the ina%ility o the %ourgeoisie to grasp the contradictions inherent in its own social order.

=or, on the one hand, capitalis$ is the irst syste$ o production a%le to achieve a total econo$ic

 penetration o society, 48B6 and this i$plies that in theory the %ourgeoisie should %e a%le to progress ro$ this central point to the possession o an i$puted- class consciousness o the

whole syste$ o production. 0n the other hand, the position held %y the capitalist class and the

interests which deter$ine its actions ensure that it will %e una%le to control its own syste$ o production even in theory.

There are $any reasons or this. !n the irst place, it only see$s to %e true that or capitalis$ production occupies the centre o class consciousness and hence provides the theoretical starting+

 point or analysis. 7ith reerence to @icardo 2who had %een reproached with an exclusiveconcern with production3, Marx e$phasised 486 that he 2deined distri%ution as the sole su%*ect

o econo$ics3. 1nd the detailed analysis o the process %y which capital is concretely realised

shows in every single instance that the interest o the capitalist who produces not goods %utco$$odities- is necessarily conined to $atters that $ust %e peripheral in ter$s o production.

Moreover, the capitalist, en$eshed in what is or hi$ the decisive process o the expansion o

capital $ust have a standpoint ro$ which the $ost i$portant pro%le$s %eco$e #uite invisi%le.48D6

The discrepancies that result are urther exacer%ated %y the act that there is an insolu%lecontradiction running through the internal structure o capitalis$ %etween the social and the

individual principle, i.e. %etween the unction o capital as private property and its o%*ectiveecono$ic unction. 1s the "ommunist aniesto states 2Capital is a social orce and not a

 personal one.3 'ut it is a social orce whose $ove$ents are deter$ined %y the individual

interests o the owners o capital / who cannot see and who are necessarily indierent to all the

social i$plications o their activities. Hence the social principle and the social unction i$plicitin capital can only prevail un%eknown to the$ and, as it were, against their will and %ehind their

 %acks. 'ecause o this conlict %etween the individual and the social, Marx rightly characterised

the stock co$panies as the 2negation, o the capitalist $ode o production itsel3. 49E6 0 course, itis true that stock co$panies dier only in inessentials ro$ individual capitalists and even the so+

called a%olition o the anarchy in production through cartels and trusts only shits the

contradiction elsewhere, without, however, eli$inating it. This situation or$s one o thedecisive actors governing the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie. !t is true that the

 %ourgeoisie acts as a class in the o%*ective evolution o society. 'ut it understands the process

which it is itsel instigating- as so$ething external which is su%*ect to o%*ective laws which it

can only experience passively.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 57/71

'ourgeois thought o%serves econo$ic lie consistently and necessarily ro$ the standpoint o the

individual capitalist and this naturally produces a sharp conrontation %etween the individual and

the overpowering supra+personal (law o nature) which propels all social pheno$ena. 4956 Thisleads %oth to the antagonis$ %etween individual and class interests in the event o conlict

which, it is true, rarely %eco$es as acute a$ong the. ruling classes as in the %ourgeoisie-, and

also to the logical i$possi%ility o discovering theoretical and practical solutions to the pro%le$screated %y the capitalist syste$ o production.

YThis sudden reversion ro$ a syste$ o credit to a syste$ o hard cash heaps theoretical right

on top o practical panic; and the dealers %y whose agency circulation is eected shudder %eore

the i$penetra%le $ystery in which their own econo$ic relations are shrouded.3 4986 This terror isnot unounded,. that is to say, it is $uch $ore than the %ale$ent elt %y the individual capitalist

when conronted %y his own individual ate. The acts and the situations which induce this panic

orce so$ething into the consciousness o the %ourgeoisie which is too $uch o a %rute act orits existence to %e wholly denied or repressed. 'ut e#ually it is so$ething that the %ourgeoisie

can never ully understand. =or the recognisa%le %ackground to this situation is the act that 2the

real barrier o capitalist production is capital itsel 3.

4996

 1nd i this insight were to %eco$econscious it would indeed entail the sel+negation o the capitalist class.

!n this way the o%*ective li$its o capitalist production %eco$e the li$its o the class

consciousness o the %ourgeoisie. The older (natural) and (conservative) or$s o do$ination had

let un$olested 49:6 the or$s o production o whole sections o the people they ruled andthereore exerted %y and large a traditional and unrevolutionary inluence. Capitalis$, %y

contrast, is a revolutionary or$ par excellence. The act that it must necessarily remain inignorance o the objective economic limitations o its own system e!presses itsel as an internal,dialectical contradiction in its class consciousness

This $eans that ormally the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie is geared to econo$icconsciousness. 1nd indeed the highest degree o unconsciousness, the crassest, or$ o (alse

consciousness) always $aniests itsel when the conscious $astery o econo$ic pheno$enaappears to %e at its greatest. =ro$ the point o view o the relation o consciousness to society

this contradiction is expressed as the irreconcilable antagonism between ideology and economicbase. !ts dialectics are grounded in the irreconcila%le antagonis$ %etween the capitalist-

individual, i.e. the stereotyped individual o capitalis$, and the (natural) and inevita%le processo develop$ent, i.e. the process not su%*ect to consciousness. !n conse#uence theory and practice

are %rought into irreconcila%le opposition to each other. 'ut the resulting dualis$ is anything %ut

sta%le; in act it constantly strives to har$onise principles that have %een wrenched apart andthenceorth oscillate %etween a new (alse) synthesis and its su%se#uent cataclys$ic disruption.

This internal dialectical contradiction in the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie is urther

aggravated %y the act that the o%*ective li$its o capitalis$ do not re$ain purely negative. That

is to say that capitalis$ does not $erely set (natural) laws in $otion that provoke crises which itcannot co$prehend. 0n the contrary, those li$its ac#uire a historical e$%odi$ent with its own

consciousness and its own actions the proletariat.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 58/71

Most (nor$al) shits o perspective produced %y the capitalist point o view in the i$age o the

econo$ic structure o society tend to 2o%scure and $ystiy the true origin o surplus value3. 49>6 

!n the (nor$al), purely theoretical view this $ystiication only attaches to the organicco$position o capital, viF. to the place o the e$ployer in the productive syste$ and the

econo$ic unction o interest etc., i.e. it does no $ore than highlight the ailure o o%servers to

 perceive the true driving orces that lie %eneath the surace. 'ut when it co$es to practice this$ystiication touches upon the central act o capitalist society the class struggle.

!n the class struggle we witness the e$ergence o all the hidden orces that usually lie concealed

 %ehind the aZade o econo$ic lie, at which the capitalists and their apologists gaFe as though

transixed. These orces appear in such a way that they cannot possi%ly %e ignored. "o $uch sothat even when capitalis$ was in the ascendant and the proletariat could only give vent to its

 protests in the or$ o vehe$ent spontaneous explosions, even the ideological exponents o the

rising %ourgeoisie acknowledged the class struggle as a %asic act o history. =or exa$ple, Maratand later historians such as Mignet.- 'ut in proportion as the theory and practice o the

 proletariat $ade society conscious o this unconscious, revolutionary principle inherent in

capitalis$, the %ourgeoisie was thrown %ack increasingly on to a conscious deensive. Thedialectical contradiction in the (alse) consciousness o the %ourgeoisie %eca$e $ore and $ore

acute the (alse) consciousness was converted into a $endacious consciousness. 7hat had %een

at irst an o%*ective contradiction now %eca$e su%*ective also the theoretical pro%le$ turned

into a $oral posture which decisively inluenced every practical class attitude in every situationand on every issue.

Thus the situation in which the %ourgeoisie inds itsel deter$ines the unction o its class

consciousness in its struggle to achieve control o society. The hege$ony o the %ourgeoisie

really does e$%race the whole o society; it really does atte$pt to organise the whole o societyin its own interests and in this it has had so$e success-. To achieve this it) was orced %oth to

develop a coherent theory o econo$ics, politics and society which in itsel presupposes anda$ounts to a (7eltanschauung)-, and also to $ake conscious and sustain its aith in its ownmission to control and organise society. The tragic dialectics o the %ourgeoisie can %e seen in the

act that it is not only desira%le %ut essential or it to clariy its own class interests on every particular issue, while at the sa$e ti$e such a clear awareness %eco$es atal when it is extendedto the #uestion o the totality. The chie reason or this is that the rule o the %ourgeoisie can only

 %e the rule o a $inority. !ts hege$ony is exercised not $erely by a $inority %ut in the interest o 

that $inority, so the need to deceive the other classes and to ensure that their class consciousnessre$ains a$orphous is inescapa%le or a %ourgeois regi$e. Consider here the theory o the state

that stands (a%ove) class antagonis$s, or the notion o an (i$partial) syste$ o *ustice.-

'ut the veil drawn over the nature o %ourgeois society is indispensa%le to the %ourgeoisie itsel.

=or the insolu%le internal contradictions o the syste$ %eco$e revealed with, increasingstarkness and so conront its supporters with a choice. ither they $ust consciously ignore

insights which %eco$e increasingly urgent or else they $ust suppress their own $oral instincts

in order to %e a%le to support with a good conscience an econo$ic syste$ that serves only their

own interests. . 7ithout overesti$ating the eicacy o such ideological actors it $ust %e agreedthat the ighting power o a class grows with its a%ility to carry out its own $ission with a good

conscience and to adapt all pheno$ena to its own interests with un%roken conidence in itsel. !

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 59/71

we consider "is$ondi)s criticis$ o classical econo$ics, Ger$an criticis$s o natural law and

the youthul criti#ues o, Carlyle it %eco$es evident that ro$ a very early stage the ideological

history o the %ourgeoisie was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the truenature o the society it had created and thus to a real understanding o its class situation. 7hen

the "ommunist aniesto $akes the point that the %ourgeoisie produces its own grave+diggers

this is valid ideologically as well as econo$ically. The whole o %ourgeois thought in thenineteenth century $ade the $ost strenuous eorts to $ask the real oundations o %ourgeois

society; everything was tried ro$ the greatest alsiications o act to the (su%li$e) theories

a%out the (essence) o history and the state. 'ut in vain with the end o the century the issue wasresolved %y the advances o science and their corresponding eects on the consciousness o the

capitalist elite.

This can %e seen very clearly in the %ourgeoisie)s greater readiness to accept the idea o

conscious organisation. 1 greater $easure o concentration was achieved irst in the stockco$panies and in the cartels and trusts. This process revealed the social) character o capital

$ore and $ore clearly without aecting the general anarchy in production. 7hat it did was to

coner near+$onopoly status on a nu$%er o giant individual capitalists. 0%*ectively, then, thesocial character o capital was %rought into play with great energy %ut in such a $anner as to

keep its nature concealed ro$ the capitalist class. !ndeed this illusory eli$ination o econo$ic

anarchy successully diverted their attention ro$ the true situation. 7ith the crises o the 7ar

and the post+war period this tendency has advanced still urther the idea o a (planned) econo$yhas gained ground at least a$ong the $ore progressive ele$ents o the %ourgeoisie. 1d$ittedly

this applies only within #uite harrow strata o the %ourgeoisie and even there it is thought o

$ore as a theoretical experi$ent than as a practical way out o the i$passe %rought a%out %y thecrises.

7hen capitalis$ was still expanding it re*ected every sort o social organisation on the grounds

that it was 2an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights o property, reedo$ and unrestricted play or the initiative o the individual capitalist.3 49?6 ! we co$pare that with current atte$pts tohar$onise a (planned) econo$y with the class interests o the %ourgeoisie, we are orced to

ad$it that what we are witnessing is the capitulation o the class consciousness o thebourgeoisie beore that o the proletariat. 8 course the section o the %ourgeoisie that acceptsthe notion o a (planned) econo$y does not $ean %y it the sa$e as does the proletariat it,

regards it as a last atte$pt to save capitalis$ %y driving its internal contradictions to %reaking+

 point. Jevertheless this $eans *ettisoning the last theoretical line o deence. 1s a strangecounterpart to this we $ay note that at just this point in time certain sectors o the proletariat

capitulate beore the bourgeoisie and adopt this, the $ost pro%le$atic or$ o %ourgeois

organisation.-

7ith this the whole existence o the %ourgeoisie and its culture is plunged into the $ost terri%lecrisis. 0n the one hand, we ind the utter sterility o an ideology divorced ro$ lie, o a $ore or

less conscious atte$pt at orgery. 0n the other hand, a cynicis$ no less terri%ly *e*une lives on in

the world+historical irrelevances and nullities o its own existence and concerns itsel only with

the deence o that existence and with its own naked sel+interest. This ideological crisis is anunailing sign o decay. The %ourgeoisie has already %een thrown on the deensive; however

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 60/71

aggressive its weapons $ay %e, it is ighting or sel+preservation. 0ts power to dominate hasvanished beyond recall.

4

!n this struggle or consciousness historical $aterialis$ plays a crucial role. !deologically no lessthan econo$ically, the %ourgeoisie and the proletariat are $utually interdependent. The sa$e

 process that the %ourgeoisie experiences as a per$anent crisis and gradual dissolution appears to

the proletariat, likewise in crisis+or$, as the gathering o strength and the spring%oard to victory.!deologically this $eans that the sa$e growth o insight into the nature o society, which relects

the protracted death struggle o the %ourgeoisie, entails a steady growth in the strength o the

 proletariat. =or the proletariat the truth is a weapon that %rings victory; and the $ore ruthless, thegreater the victory. This $akes $ore co$prehensi%le the desperate ury with which %ourgeois

science assails historical $aterialis$ or as soon as the %ourgeoisie is orced to take up its stand

on this terrain, it is lost. 1nd, at the sa$e ti$e, this explains why the proletariat and only the

 proletariat can discern in the correct understanding o the nature o society a power+actor o the

irst, and perhaps decisive i$portance.

The uni#ue unction o consciousness in the class struggle o the proletariat has consistently %een

overlooked %y the vulgar Marxists who have su%stituted a petty (@ealpolitik) or the great %attle

o principle which reaches %ack to the ulti$ate pro%le$s o the o%*ective econo$ic process. Jaturally we do not wish to deny that the proletariat $ust proceed ro$ the acts o a given

situation. 'ut it is to %e distinguished ro$ other classes %y the act that it goes %eyond the

contingencies o history; ar ro$ %eing driven orward %y the$, it is itsel their driving orceand i$pinges centrally upon the process o social change. 7hen the vulgar Marxists detach

the$selves ro$ this central point o view, i.e. ro$ the point where a proletarian class

consciousness arises, they thereby place themselves on the level o consciousness o the

bourgeoisie. 1nd that the %ourgeoisie ighting on its own ground will prove superior to the proletariat %oth econo$ically and ideologically can co$e as a surprise only to a vulgar Marxist.

Moreover only a vulgar Marxist would iner ro$ this act, which ater all derives exclusivelyro$ his own attitude, that the %ourgeoisie generally occupies the stronger position. =or #uite

apart ro$ the very real orce at its disposal, it is sel+evident that the %ourgeoisie ighting on itsown ground will %e %oth $ore experienced and $ore expert. Jor will it co$e as a surprise i the

 %ourgeoisie auto$atically o%tains the upper hand when its opponents a%andon their own positionor that o the %ourgeoisie.

1s the %ourgeoisie has the intellectual, organisational and every other advantage, the superiority

o the proletariat $ust lie exclusively in its a%ility to see society ro$ the centre as a coherent

whole. This $eans that it is a%le to act in such a way as to change reality; in the classconsciousness o the proletariat theory and practice coincide and so it can consciously throw the

weight o its actions onto the scales o history / and this is the deciding actor. 7hen the vulgar

Marxists destroy this unity they cut the nerve that %inds proletarian theory to proletarian action.They reduce theory to the (scientiic) treat$ent o the sy$pto$s o social change and as or

 practice they are the$selves reduced to %eing %ueted a%out ai$lessly and uncontrolla%ly %y the

various ele$ents o the process they had hoped to $aster.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 61/71

The class consciousness that springs ro$ this position $ust exhi%it the sa$e internal structure

as that o the %ourgeoisie. 'ut when the logic o events drives the sa$e dialectical contradictions

to the surace o consciousness the conse#uences or the proletariat are even $ore disastrous thanor the %ourgeoisie. =or despite all the dialectical contradictions, despite all its o%*ective

alseness, the sel+deceiving (alse) consciousness that we ind in the %ourgeoisie is at least in

accord with its class situation. !t cannot save the %ourgeoisie ro$ the constant exacer%ation othese contradictions and so ro$ destruction, %ut it can ena%le it to continue the struggle and

even engineer victories, al%eit o short duration.

'ut in the case o the proletariat such a consciousness not only has to overco$e these internal

%ourgeois- contradictions, %ut it also conlicts with the course o action to which the econo$icsituation necessarily co$$its the proletariat regardless o its own thoughts on the su%*ect-. The

 proletariat $ust act in a proletarian $anner, %ut its own vulgar Marxist theory %locks its vision o 

the right course to adopt. The dialectical contradiction %etween necessary proletarian action andvulgar Marxist %ourgeois- theory %eco$es $ore and $ore acute. 1s the decisive %attle in the

class struggle approaches, the power o a true or alse theory to accelerate or retard progress

grows in proportion. The (real$ o reedo$), the end o the (pre+history o $ankind) $eans precisely that the power o the o%*ectiied, reiied relations %etween $en %egins to revert to man.The closer this process co$es to it 5 s goal the $ore urgent it %eco$es or the proletariat to

understand its own historical $ission and the $ore vigorously and directly proletarian class

consciousness will deter$ine each o its actions. =or the %lind power o the orces at work willonly advance (auto$atically) to their goal o sel+annihilation as long as that goal is not within

reach. 7hen the $o$ent o transition to the (real$ o reedo$) arrives this will %eco$e apparent

 *ust %ecause the %lind orces really will hurtle %lindly towards the a%yss, and only the consciouswill o the proletariat will %e a%le to save $ankind ro$ the i$pending catastrophe. !n other

words, when the inal econo$ic crisis o capitalis$ develops, the ate o the revolution +and withit the ate o man'ind? will depend on the ideological maturity o the proletariat, i.e. on its class

consciousness.7e have now deter$ined the uni#ue unction o the class consciousness o the proletariat in

contrast to that o other classes. The proletariat cannot li%erate itsel as a class without

si$ultaneously a%olishing class society as such. =or that reason its consciousness, the last classconsciousness in the history o $ankind, $ust %oth lay %are the nature o society and achieve an

increasingly inward usion o theory and practice. (!deology) or the proletariat is no %anner to

ollow into %attle, nor is it a cover or its true o%*ectives it is the o%*ective and the weapon itsel.very non+principled or unprincipled use o tactics on the part o the proletariat de%ases

historical $aterialis$ to the level o $ere (ideology) and orces the proletariat to use %ourgeois

or petty %ourgeois- tactics. !t there%y ro%s it o its greatest strength %y orcing class

consciousness into the secondary or inhi%iting role o a %ourgeois consciousness, instead o theactive role o a proletarian consciousness.

The relationship %etween class consciousness and class situation is really very si$ple in the case

o the proletariat, %ut the o%stacles which prevent its consciousness %eing realised in practice are

correspondingly greater. !n the irst place this consciousness is divided within itsel. !t is true thatsociety as such is highly uniied and that it evolves in a uniied $anner. 'ut in a world where the

reiied relations o capitalis$ have the appearance o a natural environ$ent it looks as i there is

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 62/71

not a unity %ut a diversity o $utually independent o%*ects and orces. The $ost striking division

in proletarian class consciousness and the one $ost raught with conse#uences is the separation

o the econo$ic struggle ro$ the political one. Marx repeatedly exposed 49B6 the allacy o thissplit and de$onstrated that it is in the nature o every econo$ic struggle to develop into a

 political one and vice versa-. Jevertheless it has not proved possi%le to eradicate this heresy

ro$ the theory o the proletariat. The cause o this a%erration is to %e ound in the dialecticalseparation o i$$ediate o%*ectives and ulti$ate goal and, hence, in the dialectical division

within the proletarian revolution itsel.

Classes that successully carried out revolutions in earlier societies had their task $ade easier subjective %y this very act o the discrepancy %etween their own class consciousness and theo%*ective econo$ic set+up, i.e. %y their very unawareness o their own unction in the process o

change. They had only to use the power at their disposal to enorce their immediate interests

while the social i$port o their actions was hidden ro$ the$ and let to the (ruse o reason) othe course o events.

'ut as the proletariat has %een entrusted %y history with the task o transorming socialconsciously, its class consciousness $ust develop a dialectical contradiction %etween its

i$$ediate interests and its long+ter$ o%*ectives, and %etween the discrete actors and the whole.=or the discrete actor, the concrete situation with its concrete de$ands is %y its very nature an

integral part o the existing capitalist society; it is governed %y the laws o that society and is

su%*ect to its econo$ic structure. 0nly when the i$$ediate interests are integrated into a totalview and related to the inal goal o the process do they %eco$e revolutionary, pointing

concretely and consciously %eyond the conines o capitalist society.

This $eans that su%*ectively, i.e. or the class consciousness o the proletariat, the dialectical

relationship %etween i$$ediate interests and o%*ective i$pact on the whole o society is loc in

the consciousness o the proletariat itsel. !t does not work itsel out as a purely o%*ective process#uite apart ro$ all i$puted- consciousness / as was the case with all classes hitherto. Thus the

revolutionary victory o the proletariat does not i$ply, as with or$er classes, the immediaterealisation o the socially given e!istence o the class, %ut, as the young Marx clearly saw and

deined, its sel-annihilation. The "ommunist aniesto or$ulates this distinction in this way

21ll the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to ortiy their already ac#uired status

 %y su%*ecting society at large to their conditions o appropriation. The proletarians cannot %eco$e $asters o the productive orces o society except by abolishing their own previousmode o appropriation, and  there%y every other previous $ode o appropriation.3 $y italics.-

This inner dialectic $akes it hard or the proletariat to develop its class consciousness in

opposition to that o the %ourgeoisie which %y cultivating the crudest and $ost a%stract kind oe$piricis$ was a%le to $ake do with a supericial view o the world. 7hereas even when the

develop$ent o the proletariat was still at a very pri$itive stage it discovered that one o the

ele$entary rules o class warare was to advance %eyond what was i$$ediately given. Marxe$phasises this as early as his o%servations on the 7eavers) prising in "ilesia.- 496 =or %ecause

o its situation this contradiction is introduced directly into the consciousness o the proletariat,

whereas the %ourgeoisie, ro$ its situation, saw the contradictions conronting it as the outerli$its o its consciousness.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 63/71

Conversely, this contradiction $eans that (alse) consciousness is so$ething very dierent or

the proletariat than or every preceding class. ven correct state$ents a%out particular situations

or aspects o the develop$ent o %ourgeois class consciousness reveal, when related to the wholeo society, the li$its o that consciousness and un$ask its (alseness). 7hereas the proletariat

always aspires towards the truth even in its (alse) consciousness and in its su%stantive errors. !t

is suicient here to recall the social criticis$ o the topians or the proletarian and revolutionaryextension o @icardo)s theory. Concerning the latter, ngels places great e$phasis on the act

that it is 2or$ally incorrect econo$ically3, %ut he adds at once 27hat is alse ro$ a or$al

econo$ic point o view can %e true in the perspective o world history.... 'ehind the or$alecono$ic error $ay lie concealed a very true econo$ic content.3 49D6

0nly with the aid o this distinction can there %e any resolution o the contradiction in the class

consciousness o the proletariat; only with its aid can that contradiction %eco$e a conscious

actor in history. =or the o%*ective aspiration towards truth which is i$$anent even in the (alse)consciousness o the proletariat does not at all i$ply that this aspiration can co$e to light

without the active intervention o the proletariat. 0n the contrary, the $ere aspiration towards

truth can only strip o the veils o alseness and $ature into historically signiicant and sociallyrevolutionary knowledge %y the potentiating o consciousness, %y conscious action and

conscious sel+criticis$. "uch knowledge would o course %e unattaina%le were it not or the

o%*ective aspiration, and here we ind conir$ation o Marx)s dictu$ that $ankind only ever sets

itsel tasks which it can acco$plish3. 4:E6 'ut the aspiration only yields the possibility. Theacco$plish$ent can only %e the ruit o the conscious deeds o the proletariat.

The dialectical cleavage in the consciousness o the proletariat is a product o the sa$e structure

that $akes the historical $ission o the proletariat possi%le %y pointing orward and %eyond the

existing social order. !n the case o the other classes we ound an antagonis$ %etween the class)ssel+interest and that o society, %etween individual deed and social conse#uences. This

antagonis$ set an external li$it to consciousness. Here, in the centre o proletarian classconsciousness we discover an antagonis$ %etween $o$entary interest and ulti$ate goal. Theoutward victory o the proletariat can only %e achieved i this antagonis$ is inwardly overco$e.

1s we stressed in the $otto to this essay the existence o this conlict ena%les us to perceive that

class consciousness is identical with neither the psychological consciousness o individual

$e$%ers o the proletariat, nor with the $ass+psychological- consciousness o the proletariat asa whole; %ut it is, on the contrary, the sense, become conscious, o the historical role o the class.This sense will o%*ectiy itsel in particular interests o the $o$ent and it $ay only %e ignored at

the price o allowing the proletarian class struggle to slip %ack into the $ost pri$itivetopianis$. very $o$entary interest $ay have either o two unctions either it will %e a step

towards the ulti$ate goal or else it will conceal it. 7hich o the two it will %e depends entirelyupon the class consciousness o the proletariat and not on victory or deeat in isolated s'irmishes. Marx drew attention very early on 4:56 to this danger, which is particularly acute on

the econo$ic (trade+union) ront 21t the sa$e ti$e the working class ought not to exaggerate to

the$selves the ulti$ate conse#uence s o these struggles. They ought not to orget that they are

ighting with eects, %ut not with the causes o those eects. . . , that they are applying palliatives, not curing the $alady. They ought, thereore, not to %e exclusively a%sor%ed in these

unavoida%le guerilla ights . . . instead o si$ultaneously trying to cure it, instead o using their

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 64/71

organised orces as a lever or the inal e$ancipation o the working class, that is to say, the

ulti$ate a%olition o the wages syste$.Y

7e see here the source o every kind o opportunis$ which %egins always with eects and notcauses, parts and not the whole, sy$pto$s and not the thing itsel. !t does not regard the

 particular interest and the struggle to achieve it as a $eans o education or the inal %attle whoseoutco$e depends on closing the gap %etween the psychological consciousness and the i$puted

one. !nstead it regards the particular as a valua%le achieve$ent in itsel or at least as a step alongthe path towards the ulti$ate goal. !n a word, opportunis$ mista'es the actual, psychological state E consciousness o proletarians or the class consciousness o the proletariat.

The practical da$age resulting ro$ this conusion can %e seen in the great loss o unity andcohesiveness in proletarian praxis when co$pared to the unity o the o%*ective econo$ic

tendencies. The superior strength o true, practical class consciousness lies in the a%ility to look

 %eyond the divisive sy$pto$s o the econo$ic process to the unity o the total social syste$

underlying it. !n the age o capitalis$ it is not possi%le or the total syste$ to %eco$e directly

visi%le in external pheno$ena. =or instance, the econo$ic %asis o a world crisis is undou%tedlyuniied and its coherence can %e understood. 'ut its actual appearance in ti$e and space will

take the or$ o a disparate succession o events in dierent countries at dierent ti$es and evenin dierent %ranches o industry in a nu$%er o countries.

7hen %ourgeois thought 2transor$s the dierent li$%s 0 society into so $any separate

societies3 4:86 it certainly co$$its a grave theoretical error. 'ut the i$$ediate practical

conse#uences are nevertheless in har$ony with the interests o capitalis$. The %ourgeoisie isuna%le in theory to understand $ore than the details and the sy$pto$s o econo$ic processes a

ailure which will ultimately prove its undoing-. !n the short ter$, however, it is concerned a%ove

all to i$pose its $ode o lie upon the day+to+day actions o the proletariat. !n this respect and in

this respect alone- its superiority in organisation is clearly visi%le, while the wholly dierentorganisation o the proletariat, its capacity or being organised as a class, cannot %eco$e

eective.

The urther the econo$ic crisis o capitalis$ advances the $ore clearly this unity in theecono$ic process %eco$es comprehensible in practice. !t was there, o course, in so+called

 periods o nor$ality, too, and was thereore visi%le ro$ the class standpoint o the proletariat,

 %ut the gap %etween appearance and ulti$ate reality was too great or that unity to have any practical conse#uences or proletarian action.

!n periods o crisis the position is #uite dierent. The unity o the econo$ic process now $oves

within reach. "o $uch so that even capitalist theory cannot re$ain wholly untouched %y it,

though it can never ully ad*ust to it. !n this situation the ate o the proletariat, and hence o thewhole uture o hu$anity, hangs on whether or not it will take the step that has now becomeobjectively possible. =or even i the particular sy$pto$s o crisis appear separately according to

country, %ranch o industry, in the or$ o (econo$ic) or (political) crisis, etc.-, and even i inconse#uence the relex o the crisis is rag$ented in the i$$ediate psychological consciousness

o the workers, it is still possi%le and necessary to advance %eyond this consciousness. 1nd this is

instinctively elt to %e a necessity %y larger and larger sections o the proletariat.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 65/71

0pportunis$ had / as it see$ed / $erely served to inhi%it the o%*ective tendency until the crisis

 %eca$e acute. Jow, however, it adopts a course directly opposed to it. !ts ai$ now is to scotch

the develop$ent o proletarian class consciousness in its progress ro$ that which is $erelygiven to that which conor$s to the o%*ective total process; even $ore, it hopes to reduce theclass consciousness o the proletariat to the level o the psychologically given and thus to divert

into the opposite direction what had hitherto %een the purely instinctive tendency. 1s long as theuniication o proletarian class consciousness was not a practical possi%ility this theory could /

with so$e charity / %e regarded as a $ere error. 'ut in this situation it takes on the character o a

conscious deception .regardless o whether its advocates are psychologically conscious o thisor not-. !n contrast with the right instincts o the proletariat it plays the sa$e role as that played

hitherto %y Capitalist theory it denounces the correct view o the overall econo$ic situation and

the correct class consciousness o the proletariat together with its organised or$, the Co$$unist

Iarty, as so$ething unreal and ini$ical to the (true) interests o the workers i.e. their i$$ediate,national or proessional interests- and as so$ething alien to their (genuine) class consciousness

i.e. that which is psychologically given-.

To say that class consciousness has no psychological reality does not i$ply that it is a $ereiction. !ts reality is vouched or %y its a%ility to explain the ininitely painul path o the

 proletarian revolution, with its $any reverses, its constant return to its starting+point and the

incessant sel+criticis$ o which Marx speaks in the cele%rated passage in The %ighteenth rumaire.

8nly the consciousness o the proletariat can point to the way that leads out o the impasse ocapitalism. 1s long as this consciousness is lacking, the crisis re$ains per$anent, it goes %ack to

its starting+point, repeats the cycle until ater ininite suerings and terri%le detours the school o

history co$pletes the education o the proletariat and coners upon it the leadership o $ankind.'ut the proletariat is not given any choice. 1s Marx says, it $ust %eco$e a class not only 2as

against capital3 %ut also 2or itsel3;

4:96

 that is to say, the class struggle $ust %e raised ro$ thelevel o econo$ic necessity to the level o conscious ai$ and eective class consciousness. The paciists and hu$anitarians o the class struggle whose eorts tend whether they will or no to

retard this lengthy, painul and crisis+ridden process would %e horriied i they could %ut see what

suerings they inlict on the proletariat %y extending this course o education. 'ut the proletariatcannot a%dicate its $ission. The only #uestion at issue is how $uch it has to suer %eore it

achieves ideological $aturity, %eore it ac#uires a true understanding o its class situation and a

true class consciousness.

0 course this uncertainty and lack o clarity are the$selves the sy$pto$s o the crisis in %ourgeois society. 1s the product o capitalis$ the proletariat $ust necessarily %e su%*ect to the

$odes o existence o its creator. This $ode o existence is inhu$anity and reiication. Jo dou%t

the very existence o the proletariat i$plies criticis$ and the negation o this or$ o lie. 'utuntil the o%*ective crisis o capitalis$ has $atured and until the proletariat has achieved true

class consciousness, and the a%ility to understand the crisis ully, it cannot go %eyond the

criticis$ o reiication and so it is only negatively superior to its antagonist. !ndeed, i it can do

no $ore than negate so$e aspects o capitalis$, i it cannot at least aspire to a criti#ue o thewhole, then it will not even achieve a negative superiority. This applies to the petty+%ourgeois

attitudes o $ost trade unionists. "uch criticis$ ro$ the standpoint o capitalis$ can %e seen

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 66/71

$ost strikingly in the separation o the various theatres o war. The %are act o separation itsel

indicates that the consciousness o the proletariat is still ettered %y reiication. 1nd i the

 proletariat inds the econo$ic inhu$anity to which it is su%*ected easier to understand than the political, and the political easier than the cultural, then all these separations point to the extent o

the still uncon#uered power o capitalist or$s o lie in the proletariat itsel.

The reiied consciousness $ust also re$ain hopelessly trapped in the two extre$es o crude

e$piricis$ and a%stract utopianis$. !n the one case, consciousness %eco$es either a co$pletely passive o%server $oving in o%edience to laws which it can never control. !n the other it regards

itsel as a power which is a%le o its own / su%*ective / volition to $aster the essentially

$eaningless $otion o o%*ects. 7e have already identiied the crude e$piricis$ o theopportunists in its relation to proletarian class consciousness. 7e $ust now go on to see

utopianis$ as characteristic o the internal divisions within class consciousness. The separation

o e$piricis$ ro$ utopianis$ undertaken here or purely $ethodological reasons should not %etaken as an ad$ission that the two cannot occur together in particular trends and even

individuals. 0n the contrary, they are re#uently ound together and are *oined %y an internal

 %ond.-

The philosophical eorts o the young Marx were largely directed towards the reutation o thevarious alse theories o consciousness including %oth the (idealis$) o the Hegelian "chool and

the ($aterialis$) o =euer%ach- and towards the discovery o a correct view o the role o

consciousness in history. 1s early as the Correspondence o 5:9 4with @uge6 he conceives oconsciousness as i$$anent in history. Consciousness does not lie outside the real process o

history. !t does not have to %e introduced into the world %y philosophers; thereore to gaFe down

arrogantly upon the petty struggles o the world and to despise the$ is indeensi%le. 27e only

show it 4the world6 what its struggles are a%out and consciousness is a thing that it $ust needsac#uire whether it will or not.3 7hat is needed then is only 2to explain its own actions to it3. 4::6 

The great pole$ic against Hegel in The @oly Family concentrates $ainly on this point.

4:>6

,Hegel)s inade#uacy is that he only see$s to allow the a%solute spirit to $ake history. Theresulting otherworldliness o consciousness vis-G-vis the real events o history %eco$es, in the

hands o Hegel)s disciples, an arrogant / and reactionary conrontation o (spirit) and ($ass).

Marx $ercilessly exposes the laws and a%surdities and the reversions to a pre+Hegelian stagei$plicit in this approach.

Co$ple$enting this is his / aphoristic / criti#ue o =euer%ach. The $aterialists had ela%orated a

view o consciousness as o so$ething appertaining to this world. Marx sees it as $erely one

stage in the process, the stage o (%ourgeois society). He opposes to it the notion oconsciousness as (practical critical activity) with the task o (changing the world).

This provides us with the philosophical oundation we need to settle accounts with the utopians.

=or their thought contains this very duality o social process and the consciousness o it.

Consciousness approaches society ro$ another world and leads it ro$. the alse path it hasollowed %ack to the right one. The utopians are prevented %y the undeveloped nature o the

 proletarian $ove$ent ro$ seeing the true %earer o historical $ove$ent in history itsel, in the

way the proletariat organises itsel as a class and, hence, in the class consciousness o the

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 67/71

 proletariat. They are not yet a%le to 2take note o what is happening %eore their very eyes and to

 %eco$e its $outhpiece3. 4:?6

!t would %e oolish to %elieve that this criticis$ and the recognition that a post+utopian attitude tohistory has %eco$e objectively possible $eans that utopianis$ can %e dis$issed as a actor in the

 proletariat)s struggle or reedo$. This is true only or those stages o class consciousness thathave really achieved the unity o theory and practice descri%ed %y Marx, the real and practical

intervention o class consciousness in the course o history and hence the practicalunderstanding  o reiication. 1nd this did not all happen at a single stroke and in a coherent

$anner. =or there are not $erely national and (social) stages involved %ut there are also

gradations within the class consciousness o workers in the sa$e strata. The separation oecono$ics ro$ politics is the $ost revealing and also the $ost i$portant instance o this. !t

appears that so$e sections o the proletariat have #uite the right instincts as ar as the econo$ic

struggle goes and can even raise the$ to the level o class consciousness. 1t the sa$e ti$e,(however, when it co$es to political #uestions they $anage to persist in a co$pletely utopian

 point o view. !t does not need to %e e$phasised that there is no #uestion here o a $echanical

duality. The utopian view o the unction o politics $ust i$pinge dialectically on their viewsa%out econo$ics and, in particular, on their notions a%out the econo$y as a totality as, or

exa$ple, in the "yndicalist theory o revolution-. !n the a%sence o a real understanding o the

interaction %etween politics and econo$ics a war against the whole econo$ic syste$, to say

nothing o its reorganisation, is #uite out o the #uestion.

The inluence en*oyed even today %y such co$pletely utopian theories as those o 'allod or o

guild+socialis$ shows the extent to which utopian thought is still prevalent, even at a level where

the direct lie+interests o the proletariat are $ost nearly concerned and where the present crisis

$akes it possi%le to read o ro$ history the correct course o action to %e ollowed.

This syndro$e $ust $ake its appearance even $ore %latantly where it is not yet possi%le to seesociety ;is a whole. This can %e seen at its clearest in purely ideological #uestions, in #uestions o 

culture. These #uestions occupy an al$ost wholly isolated position in the consciousness o the proletariat; the organic %onds connecting these issues with the i$$ediate lie+interests o the

 proletariat as well as with society as a whole have not even %egun to penetrate its consciousness.

The achieve$ent in this area hardly ever goes %eyond the sel+criticis$ o capitalis$ / carried

out here %y the proletariat. 7hat is positive here in theory and practice is al$ost entirely utopian.

These gradations are, then, on the one hand, o%*ective historical necessities, nuances in the

o%*ective possi%ilities o consciousness such as the relative cohesiveness o politics and

econo$ics in co$parison to cultural #uestions-. 0n the other hand, where consciousness already

exists as an o%*ective possi%ility, they indicate degrees o distance %etween the psychologicalclass consciousness and the ade#uate understanding o the total situation. These gradations,

however, can no longer %e reerred %ack to socioecono$ic causes. The objective theory o classconsciousness is the theory o its objective possibility. The stratiication o the pro%le$s andecono$ic interests within the proletariat is, unortunately, al$ost wholly unexplored, %ut

research would undou%tedly lead to discoveries o the very irst i$portance. 'ut however useul

it would %e to produce a typology o the various strata, we would still %e conronted at every turnwith the pro%le$ o whether it is actually possi%le to $ake the o%*ective possi%ility o class

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 68/71

consciousness into a reality. Hitherto this #uestion could only occur to extraordinary individuals

consider Marx)s co$pletely non+utopian prescience with regard to the pro%le$s o dictatorship-.

Today it has %eco$e a real and relevant #uestion or a whole class the #uestion o the innertransor$ation o the proletariat, o its develop$ent to the stage o its own o%*ective historical

$ission. !t is an ideological crisis which $ust %e solved %eore a practical solution to the world)s

econo$ic crisis can %e ound.

!n view o the great distance that the proletariat has to travel ideologically it would %e disastrousto oster any illusions. 'ut it would %e no less disastrous to overlook the orces at work within

the proletariat which are tending towards the ideological deeat o capitalis$. very proletarian

revolution has created workers) councils in an increasingly radical and conscious $anner. 7henthis weapon increases in power to the point where it %eco$es the organ o state, this is a sign that

the class consciousness o the proletariat is on the verge o overco$ing the %ourgeois outlook o

its leaders.

The revolutionary workers) council not to %e conused with its opportunist caricatures- is one o

the or$s which the consciousness o the proletariat has striven to create ever since its inception.The act that it exists and is constantly developing shows that the proletariat already stands on

the threshold o its own consciousness and hence on the threshold o victory. The workers)council spells the political and econo$ic deeat o reiication. !n the period ollowing the

dictatorship it will eli$inate the %ourgeois separation o the legislature, ad$inistration and

 *udiciary. uring the struggle or control its $ission is twoold. 0n the one hand, it $ustoverco$e the rag$entation o the proletariat in ti$e and space, and on the other, it has to %ring

econo$ics and politics together into the true synthesis o proletarian praxis. !n this way it will

help to reconcile the dialectical conlict %etween i$$ediate interests and ulti$ate goal.

Thus we $ust never overlook the distance that separates the consciousness o even the $ost

revolutionary worker ro$ the authentic class consciousness o the proletariat. 'ut even thissituation can %e explained on the %asis o the Marxist theory o class struggle and class

consciousness. The proletariat only perects itsel by annihilating and transcending itsel, bycreating the classless society through the successul conclusion o its own class struggle. The 

struggle or this society, in which the dictatorship o the proletariat is $erely a phase, is not *ust a

 %attle waged against an external ene$y, the %ourgeoisie. !t is e#ually the struggle o the

 proletariat against itsel. against the devastating and degrading eects o the capitalist syste$upon its class consciousness. The proletariat will only have won the real victory when it has

overco$e these eects within itsel. The separation o the areas that should %e united, the diverse

stages o consciousness which the proletariat has reached in the various spheres o activity are a precise index o what has %een achieved and what re$ains to %e done. The proletariat $ust not

shy away ro$ sel+criticis$, or victory can only %e gained %y the truth and sel+criticis$ $ust,

thereore, %e its natural ele$ent.

March 5D8E.

Georg Lukacs !nternet 1rchive

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 69/71

NOTES

5.  Feuerbach and the %nd o "lassical 7erman $hilosophy.

8. "apital  !.

9. 1nd also o the )pessi$is$) which perpetuates the present state o aairs and represents it as

the utter$ost li$it o hu$an develop$ent *ust as $uch as does )opti$is$). !n this respect and

in this respect alone- Hegel and "chopenhauer are on a par with each other.

:. The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 59>.

>.  0bid ., p. 55B.

?.  0bid ., p. 588.

B. "apital  !, p. B> $y italics-. C. also ngels, The 8rigin o the Family, $rivate $roperty andthe )tate, ".7. 55, pp. 8D8+9.

. "apital  5, p. B??. C. also 7age La%our and Capital, ".7. !!, p. 9; on $achines see The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 5:D; on $oney, ibid ., p. D, etc.

D. oku$ente des "oFialis$us !!, p. B?.

5E. The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 558.

55. !n this context it is unortunately not possi%le to discuss in greater detail so$e o the

ra$iications o these ideas in Marxis$, e.g. the very i$portant category o the )econo$ic persona). ven less can we pause to glance at the relation o historical $aterialis$ to co$para%le

trends in %ourgeois thought such as Max 7e%er)s ideal types-.

58. This is the point ro$ which to gain an historical understanding o the great utopians such as

Ilato or "ir Tho$as More. C. also Marx on 1ristotle, "apital  !, pp. >D+?E.

59. Y'ut although ignorant o this, yet he says it,Y Marx says o =ranklin, "apital  !, p. >5. 1ndsi$ilarly YThey know not what they do, %ut they do it.Y !%id., p. B:.

5:. 6ages, $rice and $roit .

5>. ngels, $riss Fu einer ritik der Jationaloekono$ie, Jachlass !, p. ::D.

5?. "apital  !, p. 9>.

5B. "apital  !!!, p. BBE $y italics-.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 70/71

5. "apital  !, pp. 9>+D. This pro%a%ly explains the politically reactionary role played %y

$erchants) capital as opposed to industrial capital in the %eginnings o capitalis$. C. Capital !!!,

 p. 988.

5D. "apital  !, pp. 59>+?.

8E. Marx and ngels repeatedly e$phasise the naturalness o these social or$ations, "apital  !, pp. 99D, 9>5, etc. The whole structure o evolution in ngels) 8rigin o the Family is %ased on

this idea. ! cannot enter here into the controversies on this issue / controversies involvingMarxists too; ! should *ust like to stress that here also ! consider the views o Marx and ngels to

 %e $ore proound and historically $ore correct than those o their )i$provers).

85. C. "apital  !, p. 99D.

88. ie soFiale =unktion der @echtsinstitute, Marx+"tudien, ol. !.

89.  A "ontribution to the "riti#ue o $olitical %conomy, p. 9E8.

8:. The %ighteenth rumaire o 5ouis onaparte, ".7. !. p. 8>8.

8>.  0bid ., p. 8:D.

8?.  0bid ., pp. 9E8+9.

8B. 'ut no $ore than the tendency. !t is @osa Luxe$%urg)s great achieve$ent to have shown that

this is not *ust a passing phase %ut that capitalis$ can only survive+econo$ically+while it $oves

society in the direction o capitalis$ %ut has not yet ully penetrated it. This econo$ic sel+

contradiction o any purely capitalist society is undou%tedly one o the reasons or thecontradictions in the class consciousness o the %ourgeoisie.

8.  A "ontribution to the "riti#ue o $olitical %conomy, p. 8>.

8D. "apital  !!!, pp. 59?, 9EB+, 95, etc. !t is sel+evident that the dierent groups o capitalists,such as industrialists and $erchants, etc., are dierently placed; %ut the distinctions are not

relevant in this context.

9E.  0bid ., p. :8.

95. 0n this point c. the essay The ar!ism o &osa 5u!emburg .

98.  A "ontribution to the "riti#ue o $olitical %conomy, p. 5D.

99. "apital  !!!, pp. 8:> and also 8>8.

7/21/2019 Georg Lukacs.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/georg-lukacsdoc 71/71

9:. This applies also to e.g. pri$itive or$s o hoarding see "apital  !, p. 595- and even to

certain expressions o what is relatively- )pre+capitalist) $erchants) capital. C "apital  !!!, p.

98D.

9>. "apital  !!!, pp. 5?> and also 5>5, 9B9+?, 99, etc.

9?. "apital  !, p. 9>?.

9B. The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 5DB. Letters and extracts ro$ letters to =. 1. "orge and others,

 p. :8, etc.

9. Jachlass !!, I. >:. 4ritische @andglossen Fu de$ 1rtikel er [nig von Ireussen und die"oFialreor$.6

9D. Ireace to The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 5DB.

:E.  A "ontribution to the "riti#ue o $olitical %conomy, p. 58.

:5. 6ages, $rice and $roit .

:8. The $overty o $hilosophy, pp. 589+:.

:9.  0bid ., p. 5D>.

::. Jachlass !, p. 98. 4Correspondence with @uge 5:9.6

:>. C. the essay 6hat is 8rthodo! ar!ism

:?. The $overty o $hilosophy, p. 5:E. C. also the "ommunist aniesto.

 

Ta%le o Contents Q Lukacs 1rchive