Arato-Breines and Lwy on Lukcs

The Young Lukcs and the Origins of Western Marxism by Andrew Arato; Paul Breines;
Georg Lukcs: From Romanticism to Bolshevism by Michael Lwy
Review by: Ferenc Fehr
New German Critique, No. 23 (Spring - Summer, 1981), pp. 131-139
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487944 .
Accessed: 09/12/2012 08:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW ESSAYS

and Lowy on Lukdcs

Arato-Breines
by Ferenc Feh6r
AndrewArato and Paul Breines.The YoungLukdcsand theOriginsof
Western
Marxism.New York:SeaburyPress,1980.256 pages.
MichaelL6wy.GeorgLukdcs:FromRomanticism
toBolshevism.
London:
New LeftBooks, 1979.219 pages.
Shortlybeforehisdeath,Lukacs,witha cynicism
typicalofwhenhe
"In
life
I have had many
of
remarked
me:
to
mylong
spoke himself,
to
but
I
am
be
relievedof one
at
least
going
unpleasantexperiences,
about
nonsensethatwillbe written
burden:readingthe miscellaneous
ofthegeneralquality
me." Thishas turnedoutto be an accurateforecast
of worksabout Lukacs. Withdarknesssettingin, Minerva'sowletsare
drawnto his workand person,thoughwiththeunfortunate
irresistably
Withinthis
resultthatthesehave been buriedin evengreaterobscurity.
contextthebooksbyAratoandBreinesand byL6wy'(alongwithLaura
Boella's II GiovaneLukdcs2) are welcomeshaftsof light.These works
portrayLukaicsfromunusualangles,withunexpectedforeshortenings,
tender- butalways
localcolor- sometimes
harsh,sometimes
surprising
of
books
In
their
the
differences,
byLowyand Aratoilluminating. spite
bothbooks
in common.Amongotherthings,
Breineshavemanyfeatures
markthe end of a periodin whichonlybiasedstudiesof Lukacswere
eitherto provehisinnocence
written,
beyondall reasonabledoubt(mostly
his
thedevil'sally(e.g., Steineror
or
to
unmask
by
personaldisciples)
to salvagea
Both
aims
are
understandable.
Those trying
Lichtheim).3
the
of
thinker
ofgreatcultural
bypresenting image a chevalier
significance
sans peur et sans reprochefoughtagainsta situationbestdescribedby
tohaveremarked
the1930s,Fogarasiis reported
Sinko.In Moscowduring
There
is
no
of
"Lukacs?
to
Sinko:
philosopher thisname.He is
cynically
At theotherextreme,
it was
to
histories."
allowed
only
compileliterary
can
One
with
other
intellectuals.
to
of
Lukacs
create
enmity
lifelong
typical
1. For an earlier reviewby Jeffrey
Herf of the originalFrencheditionof L6wy's book,
see Telos, 37 (Fall 1978), 226-35.
2. For an extensivereviewof thisbook byEleni Mahaira-Odoni,see Telos,41 (Fall 1979),
214-19.
3. See George Steiner, "Georg Lukacs and his Devil's Pact," Language and Silence:
Essays on Language, Literatureand the Inhuman (New York, 1977), pp. 325-39; George
Lichtheim,Lukdcs (New York, 1970).

131

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

132

FehJr

readily understandhow this came about by skimmingthroughde Beauvoir's few but venomousremarksabout himin her autobiographyand by
rememberingLukaics' commissar-likeperformancein the existentialism
debate, or by rereadingDeutscher's slanderous reviewof Lukaics4and
comparingit withthe latter'sfrequentand equally slanderousstatements
about Trotskyand Trotskyism.s
The two books reviewedhere go beyond
this distastefulimpasse.
Both books tell unconventionalstories,departingfromthe usual biographicalnarrativeand organizedaroundcoherentand originaltheses.In
L6wy's case, it is thatthe valuable partof Lukacs' enormousoeuvreis his
work duringthe radical period: betweenthe pre-WorldWar I romantic,
in Historyand Class Consciousand culminating
anti-capitalistKulturkritik
ness and his conversionto Bolshevism.When he later accepted Stalin's
"socialism in one country"and turnedagainstTrotsky'sBolshevikopposition, he ceased to be radical and interesting
up to his last shiftin old age.
The Arato-Breinesthesisis roughlyas follows:What Merleau-Pontyhad
called "WesternMarxism"had been an importantculturaland theoretical
rise of the New
realityforfortyyears. Until the dramaticand short-lived
Left in the mid-1960s,however,it lacked any concreteagents.Regardless
of whethertherewillbe a futureresurgence,no acceptableculturalhistory
of the Left can be writtenwithoutascribingWesternMarxismand History
and Class Consciousness a centralrole in it. Arato and Breines do not
suggesta harmoniousrelationbetweenthe New Left and thisbook. The
storyis far more complex. Unlike L6wy, theydo not claim thatgenuine
Leninismand Historyand Class Consciousnesscoincide.WhereL6wysees
concordance and hopes of reunion,Arato and Breines revealdiscordand
irreconcilable hostility.But both sets of authors abandon the puerile
classificationof a "pre-Marxist"and a "Marxist"Lukacs, and findHistory
and Class Consciousnessto be hismagnumopus, theonlylegitimateheirto
Marx's philosophicalgenius. Each book also has specificmeritsas faras
accuracy is concerned. In L6wy it is the extensivedescriptionof Lukacs'
Hungarianbackground.Only a Hungariancan fullyappreciatetheabsence
of spellingmistakesin names, or more significantly,
the completeunderstandingof the subtletiesof complex situations.In Arato and Breines
4. Issac Deutscher,"Georg Lukacs and 'CriticalRealism,'"Marxismin Our Time
(Berkeley,1971),pp. 283-94.

5. Forobviousreasons,
itwouldbe uselessto discuss
indetailLukacs'official
Soviet

critics.I willonlyrelatea storywhichI heardfromLukfcshimself

who,despitefalseselfcriticisms
madeunderduress,wasa manofscrupulous
One ortwomonths
personal
integrity.
before Rudas' criticismof Historyand Class Consciousnessappeared in Pravda, Lukacs

receiveda letterfromhimwithwarmcongratulations
on his masterpiece,
butpredicting
difficulties
"sincetheseimbeciles
inofficial
postswillnotunderstand
yourwork."Luk~csalso
of theHungarian
Central
earlier,duringa drasticreshuffle
reportedhow,whensomewhat
he suggested
Rudas'nameforpurely
tactical
Committee,
considerations,
Bela Kuindismissed
it outof hand:"Rudas is ofno consequence.
I payhimandhe writes
whatI want."

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Arato-Breines
and Lowyon Lukdcs

133

itis the accountof the "posterity"of Historyand Class Consciousnessthat

is impressive.
ofL6wy'sthesis
discussion
Withoutat thispointgoingintoan extensive
I
itshouldbe
Bolshevism
which
of oppositional
(with
strongly
disagree),6
it
this
more
messianic
out
that
is
containing
precisely position,
pointed
elementsthanhe wouldbe readyto admit,whichhelpshimto understand
oftheyoungLukics' romantic
revoltagainstcapitalism
theprofundity
romanticism
to a romantically
butitis onlyat thecostofreducing
inspired
is not about
politicalrevolt.As withall messianicrebels,the struggle
- thatpedestrian-opportunistic
"betterment"
The realchoiceis
category.
Thisis why,evenbeforedealingwithLukacs,he
betweenall or nothing.
thedistinction
betweencultureandcivilizaanalyzesT6nnies,emphasizes
tion currentin Germanacademiccircles,and restoresto Marxismthat
butalso by
romanticdimension
denouncednotonlybysocialdemocrats
andhis
viewoftheromantic
thelaterLukics.7Thisfavorable
dimension,
lifein a mechanized
accountofthelongingfora meaningful
sympathetic
allowsLowyto providean inand lifelessmoney-centered
civilization,
of "genuine"LeninistBolshevism
as a movement
seekingto
terpretation
It
abolishalienation,andto accountforwhyLukicsbecamea communist.
conversionfroman academic
solves the puzzle of Lukacs' overnight
Germanidealistintothe People's Commissarin the HungarianSoviet
in termsof Lowy'searlier
Republic.All of thishas to be understood
workon Che Guevaraand on Marx'stheoryof revolution.8
important
Romanticidealismcarriesa criticaland emancipatory
messageagainst
SovietMarxism.Thisis a radicalpositionwhich,evenifbuilton illusions,
as its major premiseand allows for
puts forthhumanemancipation
withAlthusFor thisreasonit is irreconcilable
constantreinterpretation.
ser's "scientific"
dogmatism.
- one implicit,
the
Let me singleouttwopurelytheoretical
highlights
other explicit- of L6wy's approachto Lukacs as a radical.L6wy's
of Lukics'
condemnation
accountputsto restGeorgeSteiner'slengthy
or his"dryrationalism"
to understand
Dostoevsky,
"organicincapacity"
whether
itis
bothmoralandpolitical,
6. I simplyleaveforL6wy'sfurther
consideration,
theworkofa regimeinwhichthe
democracy"
properto describe,as he does,as "curbing
sous
totalof thoseexecutedmustbe at leastaround500,000(JacquesBaynac,La Terreur
massmurderers
more;inwhichLenin's and Trotsky's
(Dzerzhinsky,
Lenine)and probably
andexecuting
them
a system
oftaking
introduced
Lacis,Petersandtheirapparatus)
hostages
workers'strikesby
concentration
of establishing
starving
camps,of repressing
regularly,
andincreasingly
first
ofannihilating
socialist
parties,
politically
opposition
killinghundreds,
social
toa particular
massesofpeopleforthe"crime"ofbelonging
ofeliminating
physically,

group.
see my"Lukicsin
of thelaterLukics'classicism,
discussion
7. For an extensive
Weimar,"Telos, 39 (Spring1979),113-36.

8. Michael L6wy, La Thdoriede la Revolutionchez le jeune Marx (Paris, 1970); Michael

Lowy, La pensfe de Che Guevara (Paris, 1970).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

134

FehJr

unable to perceive the healthyseeds latentin such a mysticalattitude.'

From materialsdiscoveredposthumously,
Lowy knowsthatThe Theoryof
theNovel was theonlycompletedchapterofa book on Dostoevskyimbued
withradical mysticism.He also providesa brilliantanalysisof the famous
Naphta-problem:Was Lukacs reallyThomas Mann's model forNaphta in
The Magic Mountain? Those who saw Naphta's demagogy as protoBolshevik have answered in the affirmative,while those who have
ofNaphtaas a proto-fascist
haveanswered
accepted Lukics' interpretation
Mann
himself
and
ambivalent
clues to this
negatively.'0
gave misleading
solution
can
be
in
understood
relation
to
his
rehabilitaquery. L6wy's
only
tion of the romanticdimension.He knows that the romanticquest for
community,theromanticlongingfortheorganic,fora livingcivilizationas
against a "dead" or "mechanical" one is Janus-faced:It can lead to
of blood, mythand race. The
emancipatorycollectivismor to a community
Lukics
was
indeed
a
romantic
rebel.
Thus, he could have been a
early
model forNaphta, eitheras a proto-Bolshevik
or a proto-fascist.
The only
catch here is thatLowy does notseem to realizethatthisis also an indirect
confirmationof Sorel's admirationforbothLenin and Mussolini.Without
- which includesthat respectfordissenting
the norm of Enlightenment
so
in
marked
opinions
Luxemburgand so totallylackingin Lenin - there
is no way of forecasting
whethertheromanticrebellionwillfollowLukaics'
or Heidegger's political path. Withoutthis norm it can only result in
destructiveconsequences, howeverdifferent
theymay be.
One of L6wy's most attractivefeaturesis his sensitivity
to the radical
inherent
in
reconciliation
with the
utopianism
every project rejecting
When
of
given.
analyzing(p. 172) Lukaics'comparison Lessing's Nathan
theWiseand Goethe's Tasso - theplayLukacs at thetimeregardedas the
acme of lamentable accommodation- his sympathiesare withLukacs
lie in Lowy's
favoringLessing againstGoethe. The rootsof thissensitivity
hidden messianic quality. In an interestingpolemic against Goldmann
(p. 109), L6wy statesthatitwas notthecrisisoffinde sieclecapitalismbut
itsabsence thatdroveLukacs, "the revolutionary
withouta revolution,"to
despair and made himvulnerableto themysticRussianidea. Similarly,the
delayed crisestodayin thevarioussystemsof dominationmakeL6wyready
fora radical utopia.
My objections to L6wy's book are all relatedto his Bolshevism.The
firstobjectionconcernshis treatment
of theproblemof morality
in Lukacs'
earlywritings.Even here, L6wy is one of the fewto devote enoughspace
to these problems- which, surprisingly,
are neglected in Arato and
Breines' book. Lukaics'accountmoveson two levels. On theone hand,he
sees that there is a gap between Marxismas scientificsociologyand the
9. Steiner, "Devil's Pact," p. 336 passim.

10.The lastchapterof thisdisputewas thepolemicbetweenYvonBourdetandNicolas

Tertulianin theearly1970s.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Arato-Breinesand Lowy on Lukdcs

135

utopia it seeks to bringabout, i.e., a non-alienatedfuture.Here, morality

is the mediatingprinciplebetween the two and the necessaryfoundation
for a new typeof politics.Althoughit pointsto a seriouscontradiction
in
Marx, this solution is inadequate. As Agnes Heller has pointed out,
political activitymust imply moral maxims,but it cannot be based on
morality.On the other hand, Lukacs also advocates a "Dostoevskyan"
ethic: the ethicof a revolutionary
minority
practicingterrorin thename of
the proletariat.Lowy does notclearlydistinguish
betweenthetwolevelsor
see the fertility
of the firstas contraposedto the totalfalsityof the second.
who
Furthermore,he accepts as inevitablethe tragicpose of the terrorist
claims that he "has to kill" - a pose exposed on its firstpresentationin
Ivan Karamazov's parable of the Grand Inquisitor,where Alyosha's
of Ivan's efforts
to appear
embarrassedsmile revealsthe emptyhistrionics
"suffering"and become "paradigmatic."This acceptanceof Ivan's and the
Grand Inquisitor's ethic rests on three unacceptabletacit premises:the
identificationof violence withterror,the beliefin the possibilityof being
able to bringabout socialismwitha Jacobindictatorship,and the moral
approval of the individualterrorist'sdecision concerningotherpeople's
lives - the great individual'sprerogativeto be free to sacrificeothers
because he sacrificeshimself.L6wy seems uneasywhendealingwiththese
moral issues. As a moral individual,he feels thattheyare centralto the
preservation of radicalism's original mission and thereforeconsiders
Luk'cs' preoccupationwithmoralproblemsin the midstof revolutionary
turbulence both admirable and bizarre at the same time. But there is
nothingbizarre forpeople consideringpracticingterrorto at least tryto
thinkabout the moralimplicationsof theiractions,noris itadmirablethat,
havingthoughtit over, theystillpracticeit.
The second problem concerns L6wy's handlingof the problem of
reconciliationwith reality.This key concept of Hegel's post-Waterloo
period is generallyunacceptable, for the simple reason that it assumes
everythingthat exists to be reasonable. But this should not lead to
distortingHegel, who was veryclear about his intentions.Accordingto
him, alienation can be abolished only in philosophy.So one should
reconcile oneself to a realitythatguaranteeseveryone'sfreedom.But, if
the general application of the principleis abandoned while stilldealing
with practicalexigencies,as L6wy does, what criteriaotherthanHegel's
will be possible as a preconditionforaction?Of course,ifHegel's criterion
is sufficient,the dilemma evaporates. Here L6wy is at a loss because,
althoughhe has a firmstandardof comparison,he is reluctantto admitit.
This standardis the way in whichLenin acted in any givensituation.But,
even while he employsit, LAwyis too sophisticatedto admitto the sin of
More problems are
hero worship. This is only part of his difficulty.
worstpragmatists
the
was
one
of
that
his
the
fact
Lenin,
hero,
generatedby
and Machiavellianswho deridedanyonewho triedto contrasta revolutionary Ought to Is, and immediatelydisposed of such livingobstaclesby any

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

136

Fehdr

means available. Since this too is inadmissable,L6wy introducesthe

and the like,
Trotskyistmythologyof "ultra-leftism,""ultra-rightism"
inventedby Lev Davidovich himself,to preserveLenin as the standardof
correctaction.
The book's conclusion raises one final question. L6wy considers
Lukaics' last years(fromthe mid-1960sto his death in 1971) as a periodof
re-radicalization,underthe impactof the Vietnamwar, the FrenchMay,
the Prague Spring,etc. He describesthisprocessin termsof a rejectionof
reconciliationwithrealityand a returnto the "correct"radicalismof the
1920s. While therewas a shift,it cannotbe describedin theseterms:there
are no political similaritiesbetweenLukacs' viewsduringthe 1919-1922
period and those of the late 1960s. Of course, there is an ultimate
philosophical similarity:the conception of socialism as a dis-alienated
society.But in termsof practicalpolitics,despitehisfrequentreferencesto
efforts
and intrinsically
Lenin, Lukacs' half-hearted
pointed
contradictory
towards"democratization"- a euphemismforpartialpoliticalpluralism
ratherthan a revivalof Lenin's Jacobinpolitics.His conceptionwas not
equivalentto Arato and Breines' "WesternMarxism"either.It was rather
a gropingin the dark towarda politicsthatwas to be called Eurocommunism and whichwas comingintobeing around the timeof his death.
As withgood novels, Arato and Breines' book should be read backwards. They close withan analysisof Historyand Class Consciousness,an
analysiswhichis unmatchedin a literaturethatincludescontributions
by
people such as Bloch, Marcuse, Sombart and Kautsky. They not only
summarizethe major themes,but develop themso as to insertthe book
into this century'smajor philosophicaldebates. Thus, the analysis of
reificationtakes on new dimensions.The general problemof alienated
rationalityin capitalism,the universalizedfactorymodel, the transition
from Gemeinschaftto Gesellschaftrenderinglabor abstractby tearingit
fromits roots in the rural community,the developmentof the subjectobject debate fromthe stage of a givensubject to thatof a self-creating
subject and then on to the presentstage of the collectivesubject, the
complexityof immediacyand mediation- all thesethemesare notmerely
restatedbut greatlyelaborated by Arato and Breines.
But theydid not mean to writea textbook.Rather,theirsis an effort
at
of
a
in
the
which
1960s
it
was
self-understanding
typical
generation
thought
livingthrougha new typeof revolution.For thisreason,thechapteron the
"Theory of the Revolution" is crucial.There is also an originalanalysisof
Lukacs' vacillationbetween Luxemburgand Lenin. Lukacs rejected all
deterministictheoriesand saw Luxemburg'sconceptionof the inevitable
to Lenin the meritof
catastropheas such, while misguidedlyattributing
framework
of Marxismwithhis
having broken throughthe deterministic
theoryof imperialism.But he admiredLuxemburg'sfocuson proletarian
mass action,whichhe saw as a forerunner
to hisown theoryof constitutive
class consciousness,as an absoluteprecondition
of the"realmof freedom."

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Lowyon Lukdcs

Arato-Breines

137

tide begins to
Thus, Arato and Breines show how, as the revolutionary
ebb, the elitistconceptionof Leninismbuilds on the ruinsof a defeated
Luxemburgism.In this respect,theirdisagreementwithLowy is unmistakable.
All this is much more than mere history.It is part of the authors'
strugglewith presentproblems and the possibilitiesfor a radical transformationof advanced capitalism.Let me brieflysingleout threeof these
Even iftheauthors
problems.The firstis "proletarianself-determination."
are aware thatLukacs createdmythsin orderto remaina Leninistin good
conscience, his project has lost none of its contemporaryvalidity.Thus
socialism
theylinkHistoryand Class Consciousnessto theautogestionnaire
of today. The second major problemis thatof class itself.In spite of the
structuralist
vogue of class theory,thereis a growingskepticismin regard
to the sociological validityof thisconcept.On the otherhand, thereis an
obvious danger for any radicalism to dispense with the notion of a
collectivesubjectin general- withoutwhichradicalactionwouldbecome
meaningless.When Arato and Breines re-analyzethe implicationsof class
a
a new realityand as prefiguring
consciousnessas somethingconstituting
collecof
to
new rationality,theypoint some importantaspects potential
as a way of life,not
tive subjects of radical change. One is the collectivity
to
the
but
predominantlifestyle
opposed
simply as an economic unit,
centeredaroundpossession.The second is thenewcollectivesubjectas the
agent of a new, substantivetype of rationality:the rationalityof a
disrealized in permanentdomination-free
Kommunikationsgemeinschaft
version
least
one
defense
of
at
an
indirect
third
conclusion
is
cussion. The
of Marxism against the oftenproclaimedchargeof "productionism."As
theyput it: Lukacs "could, nevertheless,notbringhimselfto acknowledge
the Leninist model of the militarizedfactoryas the paradigmof socialist
transition.There were in factthreemodels of the transitionthatLukacs
as the
now (1922) rejected: (1) the mythof proletarianself-determination
contentof the primacyof the political(Lukacs' positionin 1919; in part
Lenin's in 1917; and indeed fairlyclose to that of Luxemburgherself);
(2) the primacyof economicdevelopment,yieldingthespontaneouspolitical revolutionof the proletariatand the emergenceof a new mode of
production from the womb of the old.. . and (3) the primacyof the
organizationof
politicaldimensionin theformof theauthoritarian-military
a
as
society
factory"(p. 154).
When we read theiraccountbackwards,i.e., startingfromthe analysis
of Historyand Class Consciousnessas the book's climax,its whole complexityunfolds;and the developmentof Weber's discipleand friendintoa
messianic communistbecomes, if not obvious, at least decipherable.
Among otherthings,thebook providesthefirstgood analysisin Englishof
Luk~ics' Dramahistory- a unique masterpiecein whichthe authorsfind
and
the impactof bothMarx and Simmel.Theytraceback to Dramahistory
to The Soul and Form the contrastbetweenIs and Oughtand thesubject's

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

138

Feher

predicament, its authenticityand its opposition to objectifications.So

Lukacs, as a criticof alienation,was predisposedto Bolshevism.Arato and
Breines discoverthatthedichotomyLukacs findsin Marx,i.e., therupture
between a radical utopia and the "scientific"sociologyof class struggle,is
already presentin the youngLukacs' earlyworks.For instance,Dramahistoryoperates with a rigidlyMarxist theory of the decline of the
the author'saccountof the
bourgeoisie. This is the key to understanding
transformations
of dramaticform.While Lukacs' book ends in skepticism,
his mysticrhapsodiescallingforthe "new barbariansto come to destroy
the cathedrals of lies" were explicitlyrevolutionary.Ironically,for his
mysticalrevolutionaryeruptions,Lukacs has been punishedwithan encounterwithhis heroes, who indeed turnedout to be barbarians.
One major problem with the book is related to WesternMarxism.
Strangelyenough,Arato and Breinesfailto providean accountof thiskey
notion which, despite Merleau-Ponty'sefforts,is far fromself-evident.
One is promptedto ask the further
question:whatis EasternMarxism?It
cannot be Stalin's or Brezhnev's,forthatwould be a farce. Even Lenin
cannot be seen as the source. As Knei-Paz has shown," it was the
achievementof the youngTrotsky,followingParvus' steps, to shiftthe
focus of Marxisttheoryfroma "bourgeoisified"West to a stillturbulent
East. Not until the developmentof the theoryof the "weakest link of
imperialism" did Lenin follow him in this heresy,and even then not
entirelyand overtly.This shift,whichresultedin the injectionintorevoluJacobinelement,was broughtabout by
tionarytheoryof an overwhelming
someone who was consciouslyanti-Jacobinand who predictedinevitable
doom if the Jacobinsseized power.12 Eastern Marxismcame about as an
ideology of permanentpolitical revolutionin the East as well as in all
underdeveloped areas, and resultedin a change of elite, while occasionally, but not necessarily,it precipitateda violentmodernizationof backward areas.
Despite the factthatJacobinismitselfis a Westerndevice,theEastern,
Jacobin typeof Marxismmighthave a politicalconstituency
in the West,
but can never become a dominant force there. The main formulaof
Jacobinism, i.e., the denunciationof the absence of civil libertiesin
autocracies, or of the existenceof only pseudo-libertiesin conservativeliberalstates,onlyworkswheretherehas notyetbeen full-fledged
political
ofMarx'ssocial theory
emancipation.One of themoststunningrefutations
is that in a period whose "opportunism"he and Engels so vehemently
(Oxford,1978).
11. BaruchKnei-Paz,TheSocialand PoliticalThought
of Leon Trotsky

12. Trotskyalwaysregardedhimselfas theauthorof thisshift,but in spiteof hisvanityand

domineeringmanner(and basic honesty),he recognizedLenin as theforgerof theinstrument
necessaryto realize the project. It is because of thisprofoundconnection,I believe,and not
from self-servingmotives, that he always defended his alliance with Lenin fromhis own

periodonwards.
Jacobin-Bolshevik

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Arato-Breines
and Lowyon Lukdcs

139

criticized,theworkingclass showedverylittleinterestin whatthefounding

fathercalled "human emancipation,"but foughtforpoliticalemancipation. Once achieved, politicalemancipationand BolshevikJacobinismare
incompatible. This is why Eastern Marxism never even came close to
carryingout a revolutionin the West.
This does not mean that the question of humanemancipationor disalienationis meaninglessor obsolete. On thecontrary,
itshiddenvitalityis
shown by the emergence of Western Marxism- a hereticmovement
which Perry Anderson has derisivelybut correctlydescribed as philosophy.13 Western Marxism is indeed a philosophicalproject of the disalienation of society, of a total social revolution.Yet revolutionis not
reduced to a mere culturalmovement.WesternMarxismdoes notdenythe
relevance of political struggle,and it is even ready to accept the very
violence imposed on it by its conservativeenemies. But by definitionit
as a
howeverimpermanent,
excludes terrorand the idea of a dictatorship,
means to a preliminary
stageof socialism.WesternMarxismis aware ofthe
factthat it is a practicalexpressionof the objectivetendencyof industrial
societytowarda non-Jacobin,non-Bolsheviktranscendenceof capitalism.
Thus, the advocates of WesternMarxismare pluralisticagentsofsocialism
as radicalized democracy.As a philosophicalproject,WesternMarxism
remainsa refutationof the Rousseauean visionaccordingto whichpeople
can be forcedto be free.To someone who has lived close to Lukics, it is
comfortingto be reassuredbyArato and Breinesthat,despitea forty-year
detour, Lukaicsremainsthe major architectof thisproject.
13. PerryAnderson, Considerationson WesternMarxism(London, 1976).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.75 on Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:54:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions