Conversation with Gyorgy Lukacs

Gyiwgy I , u k k s ic(is Dorii i i i 1885, died in 1971. A iuiiice of Ifiriigciry, hc is coiiiirioril!j regartlt?rl CIS the mast
iniportuiit Mmxist philosopher of this ccnturrj. IIC prticiputcd iii’thc Coininuiiist rcl;oZution i n Hungary in
1918-19, spciit triost of his subsequent life i’n exile (for rnun!j ycurs in tlic [JSSR). (itid otily rc?turtierJ to set-
tle in I f i i i i g m / rifter \i”M Wcir 11. tkst known fur his m r l y work, 1-Iistory aiicl Class Conscioiisncss, first
pii1)lislictl in <~erinan!jin 1923, Lukdcs tried througlioirt his i;ork to rescuc the Marxiciir diulectic from what
I i c cotisitkcrcd t o he its vulgnrizations mu/ to the tlicorcticnl joniiditions for a ,IIurxis.t hirrncinisrrr.
Dcspitc his lifelong ineiril~ershipin the Communist Party cintl long !/curs of (it lecist oirttcartl conforrnity to
tlic Stalinist liiie, L u k h ccitne to br? rrprdcrl as t h forerriost proj)onent of (i truly itfcirxist ulternative to
Souict-st!jlc Part!j tlogtncitisrii. Espccidl!j iiftor 1170rld IVur I I lie becoinc U Ieci(1itig figure in tho rcvicul of
d fcirxisrrr irr \Vcstcni E i i r o p , prticulurly in Fruiice aiitl Ccriiiuiiy, us iccll 11s in ~ h ici i ( & ” m torcurd a less
rigid Mnrxist thought in Easterii I:urope.
. Thc p r c m n t iritcroicic is, t o o i i r knowledge, 0110 of the lust p l i l i c statmierits liy Lukdcs. \Wde tlic in-
tcrcicrccr, ( I hitling Ztaliun sociologist, editor’ of Critica Sociologic:i, icns ititcrested in oDtaining Lukdcs’s ideas
o r & s o c i o l o p j , tlic i r i r i c i p / sigriificcincc of their toUi lies in Liih-ks’s stoterrictits on tlic prescrit contIitiori tmtl
h o l w l -for firtiirc of Mcirxisiri. I
F.F. : 1Vhoii 1 1)cgan working in sociology iinnicdi-
at cl^^ aftor tlic war, sociology
in Italy \\Tiis dead, ex-
Iiniistcd, supprcsscd. . . .
(;.I,. : I havc oftcn wonclcrcd about tlic pirposc and
Iiiittir(- of sociology ;is ii scicncc. Can sociology really
bc ;iiitoiiomous sciencc? IVhat d o e s :iutonomy
aii
iwaii ill this connection? Today thcy talk about an
iiitcrdiscipliiiar). itpproac~i.1Iut I suspect that ~)cIiincI
the> c!dl for “;LII iiitc~rtliscipliiiiiry ; t p p : ~ d i ” lics ii
gro:it conccptiinl co~ifi~sion.
I:.F.: I hiivc oftcri tho1iglit ii sociology tliiit has bot11
;i sciontific foundatioil aiid ;i political direction
coiild not devc:lop except from a combination of xioo-
idoalisin ancl tho kind of fragmcntary cmpiricism as-
socintcd with sociolog!. in the Unitcd Stntcs.
(:.I,.: 1 V c b Inlist go 1)cyond tliat. I17c must try to de-
fin(%,or :it least to keep alivcB, tho qucstion about thc
coiinc~c~tion Iwtwcc~nsociology, philosophy, cconoinics
and history. 117hc11 w c losk sight of thcsc relation-
ships ; i d limit oiirsclves to talking about an intcr-
cliscipliiiary appro;icli in sociological research, then
w e cannot avoid falling into a highly tcclinical,
30

spcciidistic fr:iISmcntotioii. The influcncc of thc: Unit-
ed Stiitcts has not I.iccn positivc: in this regard.
F.F.: Perhaps, but it seenis to rnc also simplistic to
talk about il “Marxist sociology” as though that an-
swers the quc:stioiis. We need to estdilish a truly
criticnl sociology.
c.L.: Agreed, but it is important to unclerstand why
Arncrican sociology has so rcstrictcd itsclf to pure
t cch ni q u c t w i tlioiit undcrs t and i 11g anytl ling of the
general movelnent of socicty. Tfic answer is tliat
hncrican sociology has cut itsclf off from thc ecoii-
omy. Onc: cannot undcrstand society without taking
account of its cconornic striicture. Ikcausc yon can-
not stndy a society in little bits, sociology cannot bc!
a11iiiclcpc~nclcntscicncc. Mars’s mcthod, which Stalin
ovcrthrew, ;nialyzctl thc wliolc of socicty, its style,
its inovcincnt, thc rhythm of its dcvolopmcnt. Wc
nccd lo r(:coiiiposc that unity. The fragmentation of
thc: social scicncw c;in h:tr:iccd precisely in the his-
tory of i1 bourgeois tradition t h i t promoted spcci;ili-
zatioii to thc point of scparation, ;iiid thus tlic social
scionccs iir(: irripotcnt ill cornprclionding socicty iis a
unitary wliolc ancl liocomc, insteacl, instrumcnts of
iriystific.‘1t‘1011.
F.F.: Noncth(:lcss, tlicrc is a nc!cd to carcfully cir-
ciiiiiscri1)c aiitl limit thc o1)jctct of study. Ckrtainly
wlintcvcr n c w jiorspcctivos w-c: in:iy dcvchp, W O
should not just throw out thc niany v;iluahlc rcwlts
of sociological rcsenrch over tlic Inst tl(:cnd(:s.
G.L. : Thc! rcsiilts of ciirrcnt sociology, for (:sillli1iIc
acacloinic sociology ;IS practicod in tlic Ilnitcd States,
can I)(? s:ivod. Soiiic: rcprcsent real achicverncnts and
contriliiitct important iiiforrnatioii. I ;irn iiitcrcstcd,
for iiistniicc, in certain rcscmdies rcported by Gal-
h i t l l . Of C O I I ~ S C , such rcscarchcs arc: spc!cializcd
illid, lacking n gcncrnl theory of society, i i c t v ~ r
rcacliccl the heart of the Iiroblclns. Hut tlicy ciln still
he pirt to a critical lis(:. Onc iniist makc critical i i s c
of partial contributioiis, ( ~ v c i iw l i c i i thcy coinc from
pcwplc likc Chlbraith. ?'hey hclp 11s understand how
capit;ilisrn has changed a i i d is changing cwcry day,
;ilthougli its fundanicmtal liiit~~r(: remains the saint:.
h h r s iiscd thc classical cconornists, es1wci;illy Ri-
cardo, and so we can lcarri to us(:, from a Miirxist
viewpoint, the contribiitioris of bourgeois sociology.
Y.F. : I h t cvcn bourgoois sociology does not hick
a conipr(:li(tnsi~~(t
thcorctical framcwork, cwii tliough
it is an iinplicit ow. . . .
G.I..:No, hourgcois sociology does iiot, in fact, pos-
conceptual framcwork in tIic truc: sensc:; it tioos
soss ;I
not inanage to ovcrc~oi~ictlic givciinoss of thc spccific
datum. It cannot cscapc: from vulgar empiricism. The
funclamcntal reason for this is that bourgeois sociol-
ogy lacks in any truc sense a cognitive value.
F.F.: Is it not contraclictory, thc:n, to suggcst tliat
LUKACS / 31
w e can i w the results of bourgeois sociology?
G.L.: Tlicrc is no contradiction. A s I said, siich re-
sults show, for csainple, thc developing nature of
capitalism. In the last century the niarkct, and thcre-
fore tlic powctr of capitalism, was dircctcd toward
import;int h i t limitcd sectors of cconomic and social
lifc. Thc logic of capitalism focused oil the key scc-
tors of incIustry, especially thti steel incIustj, or,
as w(: say, tlic Schicoro Ztulustrie. Hut today capital-
isiii collidcs with, and conditions, all aspccts of lifc.
Thc logic of capitalisin tends to coinciclc with thc
logic of tlic social proccss itsclf, thin spreading out
and c>ngulfingthc wholc: lifc of society. Wc have:
passod from tiic partial capitalism of tlic last ccntury
to today’s gctnernlizctl capitalisin. In this rcspcct,
Marxism, far from \icing cxhaiistcd, has hardly even
I ~ c ~ u I ~111
. iiliy C;~SC, a d par“\doscs :isid(:, hlilrxisIii
inust 1~ dwclopccl a s w(:study things that M;irx was
not dd(! to stlldy.
VJ,: I don’t iinclcrstancl. I I o w is it 1iossiblc for
3larxisin to 1)c tlio only and iicccssarjr friirncwork for
tlic rcw1iition:iry movcmeiit if tlic: fraincwork itsclf
is iiot coniplctc?
c.L.: The friu”ork is coinplctc. hlnrxisin is coni-
plcto ;is an cssc:ntial apl)roacli to thc global study of
society in historicxl tr:uisform:ition. It is cornplcto in
its i i i o d o of analysis ilnd its critoria for csta1)lisliing
tho tlicorc~ticiilliicrarcliy of hat constitiitcs socioty.
13llt colnplottrncss of mct11od doesn’t mc;111 that on(!
c:in find cnwything in hiarx. Thc spccific ingrcdiciits
:ire siiplilicd only by long, pntioiit rctsoarch on the
basis of tlic Marxist mcthod. Hcrc is whcrc tlic hlnrx-
ists t1iciiisoIvcs hii\rc goiic scriously :istray. Th?v 1i;ivc:
takcii tlic o;isy route, rcstrictiiig tliornsclvcs to rc-
e
p i i t ing things they tlon’t iiiidcrstand iiIld strcssing
tactics :iIiovc’and ngainst theory. It is clear, for os-
iiIilI)l(!, tlliit hlilr?t iicvcr serioiisly studiod thct (’COII-
oinics of Asia, Africa. or Latin Amcrica. And yt’t-
jiist think of it!-in his po1c:mic with l’rotsky Stalin
invcntod ;i Chiiicsc fcridalisrn. \I’hiit is rctally stapc-
f!ririg is that such ;I stupid invcntion llils lioc?n W-
& p t d ily xr;lo.
r.1.q:. You arc saying, i n othcr words, tliat sociology
inlist study Mars, must lciirii wcll tlw Icssoris of
J1arsisn.i.
G.L.: Yes, but thc troublo is thatstorlay tlicrc arc no
Marxists. \Vc: simply <lo not ha\v: :I Marxist thcory.
I3olicve mc, today it is necessary to do what Xlilrx
did for tlic capitalism of his tirnc. \.Vc iniist do it
both for the sakc of ci1pitiilisni today and for thc
sakc of socialism.
F.F.: Socialisni?
GI,.: YCS, also for socialism. Socialism also needs ii
coIlti~iuidcritical and demystifying analysis, arid this
must h: donc on the world scalc. No onc is doing
triw whcrc C o n m ” s t parties arc in thc opposition,
such iis tho capitalistic ll’cst?
c.I..: 1 bcliwc: so. I am asto~iishodby some of those
political situations. Look, for cxample, :it thc discrep-
ancy lietwccn thc: organizational strength of the
Italian Communist Party and its small theoretical
mc!ight. I arn not sura about thc roason for this. No
cloiibt Toghiitti W:IS :i first-chss politician, cvon a
grcat tactician. Perhaps his thcorctical curiosity was
limited. . . . Tiley tell nic hc h i d the 1ial)its of a
good hrcaucrat. Again and ;again w e are lcft only
with thc tactics. IVc riin aftor thc protcst movcmcnts
witliout undcrstandiiig tlicm, to say nothing of hav-
ing forosoeii tIiern. ~ b cxamplc:,
r we call t h : Arab
coriiitrics socialistic. Wc acccpt without liesitation
such 1:iIwls as thc? Ar:al) Socialist 1Jnion. It is rcnlly
all Inughablc. lVhat is socialist al)out the Arab world
nobody k~iows.At most we might say it is a ~iiovc-
mcnt toward nationalistic idcntity, Imt not toward
soci:ilism. Africa, Asia, Latin America arc only
plirases ill hlarx. lVe niust study thesc countries and
thcir cconoiiii(!s with the method of Marx. Failing
that, tlic!rct :ire only :alxtractions, no serious aldysis.
133ut surely the inoincnt of abstmctioli is f i l i i -
y.1.q.:
for tlic: constriletion of a gcncral thcory?
cla~~ic~ital
(:.I-.: Ccrtaiiily, and I nwuld 1)c the last to tlcny t h e
importance. of the moment of a1)straction i n tlic namc
of :I ~iiisi~iicl~trsto~~~lnintorialis~nor c!iiipiricisiii. ‘I’liis
is precisely what tlic positivists do not undcrstancl,
tli:it filets Iliilst I.)c iiitcrprctcd, iuid tlicrcforc they
iiiiist 1)c traiisccnded. It is not a qucstion of which
cc.)niosfirst, facts or abstraction. Thew is no first and
110 lator. If wc forget this wc cnd up ill a Iiyperstnsis
of tho tcrins of tlic problcrn :incl i~ic:vitablyrehpse
into insoliilde metaphysics. ‘I do not iuidcrstand all
tliis 1)ustIiiig : I l ) o u t over fnc:ts. F x t s arc n fact. That
I.wiiig is, is i i g r ( 1 d ‘Thcro is 110 reason wliatcvcr to
sctt 1111 liicirarcliios of bcting and co~iscioi~sncss. True,
Xlnrs wrota that “1)cing crcatcs thinking” ar.1~1not ’

vico wtrsa. :Incl Xiarxisrn docs base its historical

11i;lt~riidi~l on tlie priority of the social bcing over
tlw soc:i:il conscio~~snc~ss; that is a priority sui gsiicris
;ind is i i o t to I)c tnkcn litornlly. I t is ;a grcat ii&take
to subordiiiato coiisc‘ioiisiicss to bcing. In rcality tlic
consciousnc!ss \vc havc of thc social lxing cnablns 11s
to act iipon tlic social being and to transform it.
Only in this \vay c:in WO escape from tlic cnipiric;il
\voiglit of h i n g .
17.17.: Pcrhaps tliis csplains wliy tlic meaning of cm-
piricd rosc;irch oscapcs yoii so complctctly. it s c c m
that for you rcsctarch is done mcrely to support what
is ;11rcxdy k i i o \ v i i on tho sribjcctivc: concctptiial lovel.
I3nsically you dcnp that important new discovcries
may forcc a rcopcning of the tlicoretical scheme, and
thus tho crcativc: fiinction of roscarch cscapes you.
GI..: Not at illl. I, of coursc, recognize thc funda-
inental importancc of tlic documented aiinlysis as
:igninst gr:iti.iitous arid :irbitrary abstractions. Mars
liimsolf considerccl the writings of his youth to 1)c
piircly philosophical in tlic traditional scnsc. Hc
thoiight his truly iniportaiit work \viis Ilas KapitaZ,
th:it is, the iilidysis of the cilpitiilistic socicty of his
time. . . . Miirsisin affirms sciontific nnnlysis, lint that
is iiot thc: sainc! thing as :I positivistic analysis, wliicli
is cns1:ivctl by facts it cannot intcrprct. Nor, of
c:ours(:, is scieiitific Marxism syinpathctiL to iclcnlistic
analysis. h,I;irs’s criticism of clilssical pliticill won-
of Smith a~itlRici1rtl0, is great ex-
O I I I ~ , l~sll(!ciilll~
iiiiiplc of scifntific criticism *rIicir t1ic:orios wort
hasically static ilnd this co1M not ilccoillit for the
Iiiowiiimt of socicty. Xlarx places their static facts
(tlic! niarkct, lal)or, goods, etc. ) into a specific his-
torical sctting and rcdcfincs thom in dinlcxtical tcwns
which ilr(: i11>1<% to take accoiint of history’s movcmciit
without ct(?rIiidi~i~ig or rctifyiiig any of its pi1rticlllnr
I>hilstrs. This I i c givos back to ni;iii his history. Til
hf?:s, history i i o longer bolongs to iinturct. Tt lxt-
conic’s culturc, that is,’ Iiiirriaii coiiscioiisiioss, hiiin:in
idii(:\r(~lnc!iit,Iiiliiii1n rosponsiibility. Ilistory bclongs
to tlic social coiiscioiisiicss, which inastcrs, comprc-
bonds iiIid trii1isforIns the social being. It is in this
light tliiit I rcjcct :my hicrrarcliy 1)ctwoc:ri lxtiiig and
c‘oiiscioiisiicss.
i:.~.: I t is t l i c ccoiioiiiic, or striictiir:d, plan that is
tlocisivo in tlic S1:irsist cxplanation of society.
Rut j . 0 ~ci1111iot isoliitc thct ctconornic p1;11i,;IS
(;.I,. :
yo11 call it, from id1 tlic rest. B y tlicriisclvos ccoiioiiiic
motivcs c~splaiiiiiotliiiig. Oiic must bc~varcof iiitcr-
prc:;iig hlarsisiii ~ ~ i e ~ l i i l ~ l ihlarxisrii
c ~ i l l ~ . too is siih-
jcct to a positivistic intcrprctation, and tho result,
botli political ; l i d pliilosophici~l,is opportunism, or,
as w e h;ive sc:cii, Sta1inisn.i.
F.I... : I w o n t l c ~i f ?.oii woiiltl :igrc!c! tliiit tlic schciii-
atisin, or thc bases ol sciciitific rcasoniiig within il
givcii historical liorizon-pro\~lc!i~i,hypothisis, wrifi-
cntioii-1i:ivc ;i v:ilidit)r of their own wliich is intle-
pcndcnt of historied contiiigcncic!s.
(:.I,.: ’I’lli1t Iii(~:1liS siinply that hfarsisin is liot to bc
rlogrriatizrrd, thilt tliorcr is within Marsisill ii critical
impulse ivliicli affccts spocific tloctrinc. I have nl-
rcady siiitl tliiit Xhrsisiii 11ii.Ist 1 ) devc:lop(d,
~ that the
work of kliirs niiist l)c rc:id to its concliision. hl;irciisc
has t r i d that according to ;i scliciiiatisr.11that is cs-
of scicntifk
sctntially iitopiaii. h~Iiirciis(!is 110t cii~~~il.)lc
aiialysis. I I c has lost sight of tlic workiiipq c1:iss. IIis
idcnlization of:tlic su\)prolctnri:it is wholly romantic
iiiid without scrioirs basis. 0 1 1 thc other hand, thc:
moment of scientific an:ilysis is fundamental; thctrc:
can Lc 110 truly rovo1iition:iry politics withorit a
prior scicntific i d y s i s t h t is r c l a t d to the goiicxil
franicnvork of history and society. For tho rc:volution- F.I.’.:\Vhilt todii, call IX d011cin tho Soviet t!iiion
a y movement of today this is thc most urgcrit iicctl. in ordctr to oinorgc froni Staliiiisin ii1id rctiirii to
111 fact, wc Iiil\r(: 110 policy ~ X ~ I I I S Cwc ha\^! 110 Xlarsisrn‘?
34 / WORLDVIEW / MAY 1972
G.L.: Littlc-very little, priicticiilly nothing. Bccairsc
tlirty I i a w siibordinntctd theory to prncticc, our Soviet
fricwds ;ire forccicl to iise hlilrxisin siriiply to ration-
alize iinnic~diatc political nccctssities. For ctx;i~iiple,
tlic dispiitc bctwccn the Soviets and thc Chinese
has 11otihg to do with Mirsism. ~t is mcrcly a con-
flict ovcr political tactics wliicli cannot bc rosolvcd
btrc;iusc: 110 gc!rwr;il hfarxist tlic:ory csists.
F.F.: From what (lo you infor the noiicxistcncc of ;I
gctiior;il Marsist i-licory ;ipplicnl)lc to o i i r day?
(;.I-.: From the fact that w(: Iiavc: lieen losing
groiind, ;ind things seem to c t s c q ) ~us. 77icrc arc iicw
p l i o 1 1 0 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ;1 i: ~b o ~wliicli
t \\Y: 1 i : i ~ eiiothing to say. \VC
w i t for the grctat crisis of capitalism, hiit capitdism
lias 1i;td no significant crisis since 1929 \)ecausc 1)jr
1 1 0 capitalism
~ has takcii lioltl of all social life. \Vc
don’t likc to sajr this, Init it is triic. Thc inass con-
suniptioii of the workers hils liecoinc ;I 11t~aiisfor
ctlimiiiatiiig tho crisos of capitalisiIi. From the inarkct
that hlars ; i ~ dEngcls kiiit\~-striictiir~il,objcctivc, in
n i ; t i i > * \r:iiys rcvo111tioii:iry\vith r(:fcrcncc to the stii-
piditv of rilril1 life :ind of tradition in general-w:
1i;ivc~niovcd to tlict m;iIiipulatcd inarkct of this em-
t1.1ri‘. \!‘liilc our il1iiilysis stoO(1 still, capitalism coli-
ti~iii(.vlto c~volvo.IVo stoplicd with Lenin. Aftctr hiin
t l i c r c ~Iias I1oc:n i i o h1;irsism.
During tho niiiot(:cnth cciitiiry, for c:s;i~ripIc, tlic
lorigtli ot’ ( 1 1 0 \vorkiiig (lay w a s ; i n important qucs-
tioil. ~t \vr:nt froiii fourtoctn Iioiirs to tliirtcoii to
‘t\vchvc! to toll m i d SO 0 1 1 . Toclny it is ;I d i f r ~ r ~C~~ Ll Wt S -
t i o i i . It is riot s o mucli tlic Icngtli of the work wctctk
that is iinportaiit I ) u ~ Iiow to understand and pro-
gram n.liat thc tvorkcw (lo (luring tlioir fainoils “free
tiinc”; \vIi;it tlioy coiisuiii(:, \vhctl.c t h y go, and so
forth. 1 1 1 tlict niiicttcctntli cc:iiturjr the capit:ilist could
I)(: iiidiif(:r(!iit to tho workers’ c:ipiicity for corisuinp-
t i o i i . Chpitalis~ii ttieii \KIS intercstotl ;it)ovc: all in
Ixisic invc?stincnts, in h v y industry, mid import:int
soctors of collocti\~life ~ c r 1)yp;isscd. o Today cap-
itnlism is profoiindly intercstod in d l social life,
froni ladies' hoots to ;iutomol)ilcss, cooking utensils
to iiio;iiis of i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ It ~ (is! ;I~ ~ c~unlitativc
~ ~ ~ i t ,~liariga
;iliout wliich w:know little. I V c riiiist k w p :in cyo on
tlici ovolution of tlie tc:clinic~i~cs of production, and
t Iicrc:forcb on t l i o ctvoliitioii of tlic division of labor
ant1 on the repercussions of productive tcchnology
for profcssioiial roles ancl for the way thc class strug-
glc takcs shapc.
I#*.V.: I am interested in the role of iiitellcctrials in
shaping the gc!ncral theory you call for. Can one still
consider iritcllcctiials as :i scpar:itc social group, or
arc the intellectuals salaricd workcrs like cveryonc
C!lSC?
(x.:
No, it docs not seem to in(: that intcllcctuals
are pirely and simply salaried workers like all tlic
otlicrs. Tlic so-called prolctarization of thc intcllec-
tiids docs not make them aut1ienti.c proletarians. In-
tcll(!ctuals liavc qiiitc: ~ p ~ ~ rcsponsibilities.
iitl Among
IIS, for c:xa1nple, thcy can liavc real p o w r aiid play
ill1 in.iportant role in political dccision. But they coil-
tinuc? to complain. Likc: an adoIescent with his first
girt f r i c d , hc is proud of her, wants her to be seen
in society, but is at the sitrnc time ashmnctl. Tlie in-
tcllectiial’s rclationship with powctr is arn1)iguons.
T l i c official propaganda contiiiucs to talk al)out the
“dictatorship of the prolc taria t,” b i i t thc in tellcctuals
who prctcnd to he workers l.)ccomc:ridiculous. llow
cmi one forget that even Mirx and Eiigds were in-
tcllcctuals il1itl bourgeois, and of course Lenin him-
self c;iiric from ;III iiitcllcctual 1)oiirgeois f i 1 1 1 i i I ~ .\I‘c
should rcmcmlicr wh:it 1,cnin taught us, that thc
socialist conscicncc tlocts not rise spoiit:inc:ously from
nrithiii the working class, that it is I~rouglitto thc
\vorkiiig class 1.y rcvolutionary intcllcctuals. Exactly
how this Iiapp(?iisvaries from one period to :inotIicr,
Imt thorc: is no nicclimiicnl spontancit). in it, no
f;itnlisni. .
Of C O L I ~ S Owc
, I I ~ L I S:it~ d 1 costs avoid I~iit(!rdisll1
1 ) ~t h intelloctuals,
~ for pitctr1iiilisI1i is d\\rii);s ~ 0 1 1 -
cctalcd ;iiithorit;irianisin ; i ~ i dtlicruforc all the more
insidioiis. 13i.it the fear of patcriialism slioiiltl not
11i;ikc 11s closc oiir cycs to the jrnportancc, undcr
ccrtilili decisive circurnstariccs, of the role played
by grciit personalities in history. IWiat woiild have
happeii(d in 1917 in the Soviet Union without Lenin?
Can we lie sur(: that, in his abscncc, we would h:ivc!
l i n d thc Octol>c:r Revolution? Socialism is wliat mcn
makc of it. It is up to tliem to see that tlio construc-
tion of socialism is not impoded and finally suffocat-
od by burcaucratization.