" 4. For us and for itself " ^^^^ CB: I use "thing-for-us" and "thing-in-itself"
_ When I first received this book, I perused the various commentaries by its various contributors other than Lukacs, without reading Lukacs' own text. Now I've done just the opposite, reading Lukacs sans the commentaries (pp. 45-150). Many of you will recall the trajectory I've been following, revisiting the premises of critical theory in relation to the problems of the philosophy of the natural sciences. I think I most recently reported on the Marcuse-Popper debate. I have yet to write up my review of Steven Vogel's AGAINST NATURE, which pinpoints the cardinal weaknesses of the tradition from Lukacs to Habermas but whose conclusions are taken in the wrong direction. The last book I read before this was DIALECTICAL CONTRADICTIONS, an excellent compilation of essays from the Stalinist camp, much more philosophically sophisticated than the usual diamat agitprop. It treats of the issues surrounding dialectics and logic fairly well, showing up the strengths of those who follow the natural-scientific tendency within Marxism. But of course these are the same people who oppose critical theory and the anti-Stalinist wing of Marxism--both Soviet philosophers like Narski and their western followers. Revisiting Lukacs at this point means rehashing issues which are old-hat, but nonetheless it is useful to look for missing links in intellectual history when in an evaluative woulda-coulda-shoulda phase. Recovering Lukacs' lost manuscript doesn't solve the problem, but is nonetheless illustrative of what coulda happened but didn't. Vogel wrote before this Lukacs ms appeared; it would be interesting to see what he would have made of it. I've written about the need for an integration of knowledge which has yet to come. All of the above serve as indicators that it hasn't come. Lukacs lost mss shows the extent to which Lukacs pursued the issues in a hostile environment, how far he could go and where he broke off. He was screwed by his fellow Bolsheviks. He could not effect the integration of knowledge within the context of the Third International, let alone within the universe of knowledge. But it's still of interest to see that he was philosophically the most advanced within the Bolshevist tendency. Lukacs takes on these essential tasks in his mss: (1) demolishes the 'Kantian' arguments of his accusers: the 'Menshevik' Deborin and the 'tailist' Rudas; (2) argues that his book History and Class Consciousness (HCC) is a philosophical defense of Bolshevism; (3) demonstrates that only the dialectical perspective can surmount the subject-object dualism implicit in the philosophy of his attackers; (4) takes on Engels' remarks about Kant, the dialectics of nature, and the role of the scientific experimenter within the total social process. The structure of the ms is as follows: I. Problems of Class Consciousness 1. Subjectivism 2. Imputation 3. The peasantry as class II. Dialectic of Nature 1. Exchange of matter with nature 2. Simple and higher categories of the dialectic 3. Once again: exchange of matter with nature 4. For us and for itself Lukacs argues that Deborin and Rudas are caught within a dualism of subject and object, and therefore are incapable of addressing the nature of class consciousness, revolutionary praxis (as opposed to fatalism and spontaneity), and the Bolshevik party as the vehicle for the mediation of the objective and subjective dimensions of class struggle. (See esp. pp. 56, 63, 65, 67, 72, 75, 76, 79.) Lukacs argues at length for his conception of 'imputed class consciousness', i.e. from the viewpoint of totality of the working class situation and its interests rather than from the standpoint of immediacy. Mediation in contradistinction to immediacy becomes a central conceptual concept for Lukacs. Lukacs makes a pretty good case against Deborin and Rudas. Perhaps later on I'll point out specific details. Of note is the natural-scientific perspective of Lukacs' opponents, the notion of 'laws of history', and subjectivity and consciousness across the great divide. There's also an arcane treatment of their implicit Kantianism and the duality of form and content (76). Lukacs convincingly argues how his viewpoint alone philosophically captures the essence of praxis (which must of necessity become embodied in a Communist party). My memory of Soviet philosophy in the 1920s is not very good, so I can't contrast the arguments presented then with the party line of the New Turn of 1931 which sent Deborin packing as well as his rivals, and establishing the dominance of murderous Stalinists like Yudin and Rosenthal. Stalinism was and could not remain content with a 'contemplative' natural-scientific perspective; the activist element had to be activated as well. This was accomplished in the Stalinist double-cross of 1931. But my memory is too vague to compare any possible differences between the standard Marxist-Leninist line of 1924 and that of the 1930s. And then there is the comparison between Lukacs' conception of praxis in the '20s with the Stalinist line of the '30s. (Cf. also Sidney Hook's use of Lukacs in his 1933 work and the hot water he got into with the CPUSA, though his 'heresies' look rather tame today.) The other question relates to Lukacs as philosopher of Bolshevism (rather than as godfather of 'Western Marxism'). One can argue for the vanguard party as an ideal concept. Even today Trotskyists argue that there is no reason a vanguard party could not function in a democratic manner. However, bringing this abstract notion into contact with empirical realities messifies the whole business. The issues are now obvious: (1) since the objective mass basis for this type of party seems to have disappeared in advanced industrial societies, what is the appropriate form of mass organization for today; (2) membership in an opposition party is more or less voluntary, and hence there remains freedom of association; whether a party captures the unique historical role it seeks for itself is still an open question; (3) the situation changes completely when a party captures state power; (4) the party as the mediator of class struggle becomes problematic when the party is corrupted. Lukacs could not have foreseen all the problems that became obvious later, yet he was unaware that Bolshevism had already become irreversibly corrupted at the time of his writing, and that very corruption was manifest in the attacks upon him. So at that very moment his theoretical justification of the vanguard party, which makes sense as an abstraction, was already out of phase with the empirical realities of how such a party really functioned in the context in which Lukacs lived and acted. And so the forward thrust of Lukacs' brilliant theoretical argument is brought to a screeching halt. (to be continued) >To: marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> >From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at igc.org <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> > >Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:36:37 -0400 >Subject: [marxistphilosophy] Tailism and the Dialectic > > >Today (I'm pretending it's still Thursday) I received my copy of _Tailism >and the Dialectic: A Defence of History and Class Consciousness_ by Georg >Lukacs. Just from reading the front and back matter by John Rees, Laszlo >Illes, and Slavoj Zizek, I'm convinced of the indispensability of this >book. The amazing thing is that no one knew this manuscript even existed >until the secret archives of the Soviet Union were opened for public >inspection. And this manuscript appears to be the missing link that >explains everything that Lukacs was on about and his relationship to the >forces that crushed his independence. Apparently, this work forces us to >rethink certain assumptions about Lukacs including his supposed hostility >to the natural science and the dialectics of nature. This work shows >Lukacs responding to the accusations of Deborin and Rudas and stressing the >special role of the subject/object relation as it affects the study of >human affairs in a way not applicable to inanimate nature. It seems, at >first glance, that Lukacs is not questioning a unified conception of >scientificity as well as man and nature so much as the dynamic of the >subject/object relation in social theory and political practice. If you >compare this to the administrative-bureaucratic mentality of most of the >Bolsheviks--leaders like Zinoviev and philosophers like Deborin and >Rudas--the historic tragedy of the whole situation becomes clear. > > > >--------------------------------------------- >"This e-mail kills fascists." > > -- Woody Guthrie ________________________________ * Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Antagonism between social production and private property * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ________________________________ More information about the Marxism-Thaxis mailing list <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
