ANDRIW
TTENBTNG
Post-UtopianMarxism:
Luklcs and the
Dilemmas of
T N T R o D U C T T o N :L U K , { . c s , t U x E M B U R G , A N D L E N r N
Geolg Luk6cs'sHistory anrl ClassConsciousness
containsone of the most
important discussionsof organizational questions to emergefrom the
tumultuous period immediately following World War 1. Unfortunately,
Lukiics'scor.rtributionis Iittle studiedor discussedtodayandy'idelymrsunderstood.Tlpically, he is viewedasa proto-stalinist by critical theoristsin
Germanyand Arnerica and asa romantic irrationalist by Marxist scholars
under the influence of Louis Althusser and Lucio Colletti in England,
France,and Italy. Michael Lowy's careful study of Lukics's position in its
historicalcontext shows that neither of these interpretations is correct.
Ltiuryarguesconr.incinglythat Luk6cshas an original conceptionofpoli,
ticsthat is still ofinterest.l
Indeed,Lukiics can be seenattempting to construct a theory of mass
politicsat a decisivejuncture, just before its d,egeneration
at the hands of
modernpoliticalparties,the media,and bureaucraticdictatorships.
He
still hoped that the existential involvement of the massesin hisrorical
actioncouid ground a learning processleadingto higher levelsoffreedom
and individualitl Not just Luk6cs,but also Korsch, Gransci, and other
Marxist thecrists in the rgzos der.isedpersonalr,ersionsof Leninism as a
t. For exanrples,seefiirgen Habernas, Theoryantl practice(Boston:Beacon,197-l),34
36;LouisAlthusser,er a1.,Lirc le Copital(Patts:tr4aspbro,
r967),vol. z,1rl4.Cf. Michael Ldwy,
Pout une sociologies
desitltellectuelsritolutionaires(Paris:PressesLlniversitairesde France,
\976),zo3_25.
46
AndrewFeenberg
framework for transforming the defensiveworking-classcounterculture
inherited from the Secondinternational into a basefor aggressiveanti
capitalistpropagandaand action. They were more or lessawarethat they
were in strugglewith a new form of masssociety,a more powerfui adversary than anl'thing the nineteenthcentury had been able to produce This
"hegemony,"
showedup in a new emphasison "consciousness,"
awareness
"spiritual factors." They hoped that the experienceof political action
would produce a historicalsubjectwith unprecedentedresistanceto bourgeoisculture.
The problem as it appearedin this early period concerned the possibility of massenlightenmenton the basisof lvlardst theory in opposition
to a rising tide ofreactionary beliefssupportedby the establishedcultural
institutions. Iv{orepreciselv,the revolutionariesneededto work out the
relation between the scientific content of Marxist theory, to which the
party had access,and mass action, the radical tendency of which made
Marxist ideascredibleto workers.
The purpose of this chapter is to reconstructLuklcs\ solution to this
problem as it grew out ofhis evaluationofthe work ofRon Luxemburg
and Vladimir Lenin, and then to consider the inauspicioustheory ofthe
Lukdcswrote
socialiststatethat capsit.In History and ClassConscioasness
that "the questionoforganization is the most profound intellectualquestion facing the revolution."'?Lukiics'sintenseinterest in what might normallybe seenastechnicalpolitical problemswasconnectedto the intensity
ofrevolutionary expectationsin his day.He wrote, "Onlywhen the revolution has enteredinto quotidian reality will the question of revolutionary
of
organizationdemand imperiously to be admitted to the consciousness
the massesand their theoreticians"(HCC zgz) It is in this context that
Lukdcsstudied the debatesofLuremburg and Lenin, not merely aspolitibut asindicesofthe changingrelation of Marxist theory
cal disagreements,
to historical reality.
In the languageof the SecondInternational, the dispute betweenLuxemburg and Lenin concernedthe relativeimportanceof"spontaneity" and
"consciousness."
Theseterms refer respectivelyto uncontrolled massactrars. Rodney Livingstol€ (Bostoni
z. Georg Lukics, History anA CldssConsciousness,
MIT Press,1968),ll8; hereafterreferredto asHCC in the texi.
Post-UtoPianMarxtsffi 47
important not to confuse"spontion and party-directed activities' It is
with romantic notions of the
taneity" in this SecondInternational sense
explainedthat "the
uncausedor the unmotivated. Luk6cs,for example'
mass-psychological
spontaneityof a movement . . . is only the subjective'
laws" (HCC-Aoz)'"Coner?ressionof its determinationby pure economic
as
on the other hand, suggestssuch instrurnental notrons
sciousness,"
over the relative
"theory" and "planning'" Accordingto Luk6cs'the debate
goesvery deepto the heart
importanceof spontaneityand consciousness
"the question of how to
of the Marxist conception of the revolution, for
organicallyfrom a
organizea revolutionary party can only be developed
that Luxemburg's
thJory of revolution itself" (HCC 297)' Lukics claimed
of the revolution as
emphasison spontaneity was due to a concePtion
motion of
primarily socialrather than political, asa product ofthe lawsof
hand' Lenin s
capitalism'scontradictory economicstructure' On the other
as the
emphasison consciousnessreflected a concept of the revolution
politicaltranscendenceof thedeterminism of the economy'
locus clasAt the time Lukiicswaswriting' Luxemburg'sthought was a
concepsicusamongWesternMarxists. Luk6csstartedwith a spontanerst
gradution ofthe revolution, derivedin part from Luxemburg'and moved
practice'
ally toward a position more nearly consistentwith Lenin s actual
out Luk6cs'schangingposition on
Historyand ClassConsciousnessworked
the question of organization in the course of two essayson Rosa Luxemburg,the first written in 192i,the secondexactlyone year later' However,if Lukdcsfinally preferred Lenin's organizationalmethods' he continued to believethat it wasLuxemburgwho "sawthe significanceof mass
actionsmore clearlythan anyone" (HCC 298)'And aslate asLuk6cs'slerin
book, he continued to analyzethe phenomenon ofthe sovietsor councils
in Luxemburgianterms asexpressingthe breakdownofthe reifiedboundary betweeneconomicsand politics that underliesbourgeoissociety'3His
interpretation of Lenin, furthermore, revealedan implicit rejection of
much of Lenin'sown self-interpretation,particularly the theory of "consciousness
from without." Thus in his earlyMarxist works,Luk6csseemsto
haveattempted a synthesisof ideas drawn ftom both Luxemburg and
Lenin.
3. GeorgLukiics,lenin, trans.N. lacobs(London: New Left lJooks'rgTo)'67-6tl'
48
Andrew Feenberg
R E F L E X I V ES U BJ E C T I V I T Y
Lukiics'sretlectionson organizationaddressthe vexedquestionofthe relationship betweenMarxist theory and working-classpractice.The problem
arisesbecause,given its independent "scientific" origin, Ivlarxism'stie to
the labor movementmight be merely contingentand conjunctural-lvlarxism and the rvorking classmight have joined together through a happy
mutual misunderstandingand not be essentiallyrelated at all. As Lukics
wrote: "The issueturns on th€ question of theory and practice.And this
not merelyin the sensegivenit by lvlarxwhen he saysin his first critique of
'theory
Even
becomesa material forcewhen it grips the masses-'
Hegelthat
featuresand definitions
more to the point is the need to discor,'er.those
both of the theory and the waysofgripping the masseswhich convertthe
theory,the dialecticalmethod, into avehicleof revolution. . . . If this is not
done that'gripping of the masses'could well turn out to be a will o'the
wisp. It might turn out that the masseswere in the grip ofquite different
forces,that theywere in pursuit ofquite different ends.In that event,there
would be no necessaryconnectionbetweenthe theory and their activity"
(HCC z). Luk6cs'sresponsewas formulated in terms of what I will call
Marx's "reflexive"conceptof subjectivity.
The conceptof subjectivity in Marx's early writings was deeply influencedby Hegel'scritique of the Jacobinexperiencein the FrenchRevoluHegel claimedthat-theJacobinsattemptedto
tion. In the Phenomenology,
imposea moral truth directly and immediately on societyin ignoranceof
the deeperlevelofsocial realityfrom which actualdevelopmentarises.But,
Hegel and lvlarx both argued, morality is a functional element within
societyand not a standpoint on society.They agreedin rejectingthe complete disconnectionof supposedlyabsoluteethical and political imperatives from actual social life. If societiescan be ordered in a normative
continuum, as both Hegel and Marx believed,it must be in terms of
standardsother than moral ones.
In the light of Hegel'scriticism, Marx was arxious to avoid a purely
political moralism that would be basednot on real social tensionsbut on
abstractprinciples in the Jacobinmanner. Marx's original discussionof
these problems is found in severalearly essaysin which he attempted
to distinguish his position from utopian communism and the JacobinBlanquist revolutionism ofhis day.In the early r84os,when Marx elabo-
Post-UtoPianMarxism 49
under the influencenot only of Hegel'
ratedthis position, he was writing
ofreligious alienationhe attemptedto
i,r, utro oif.u".Uuch, whosetheory
peneralizetoincludemoralityandthestate.|ustasFeuerbachreduced
in the alienatedcommunity' so Marx proirfigion ,o its "human basis"
life was
j".-t"J the 'tociut" asthe hidden unity ofthe contrariesinto which
The return to this basiswould requirenot
iivided in alienatedclasssociety.
and' correspondingly'not the
th" ,.fo.* of tl.restate but its abolition
civil society,dialectically
moralizationb,,ttt|.teabolition o| property-based
in his view' could not be a utopla
correlatedwith the state'Communism'
for the veryact of imposing
-':utopia'
i.por.d frot aboveagainstprivareinterests'
ethicsand reality'
would reproducethe basicill' the split between
down to earth' to realizemorality
A revolutionthat aims to bring morality
the interestsand culture ofthe
Ul-"f.itg i f.",ure of daily iife' rooted in
"
could neversucceedon the basisof stateaction'
people,
'
King of Prussiaand Social
th,r, h" argued in "Critical Notes on The
on abstractethicai
Reform"that the proletariat cannot baseits revolution
intereststhey must by
exigenciesimposed by the state againstthe real
ethical form' The prodeinition contradict insofar as they take on an
infusing it with correct
letariangoal is not merely to changethe stateby
state'The proletariat
moralprinciples,but far more radicallyto destroythe
purposes' and should
,hoold uuoid politics, except for purely negative
creating a wholly
insteadconcentrateon social action toward the end of
newtypeofsocietyin which poliricswill be unnecessary'a
as a
Theseconceptshad a lasting impact on Marx's self-understanding
ethical
revolutionarytheoretician.For if Marxism is not merelya disguised
revoluthe
exigencyfromwhich the statewould necessarilybereborn after
Startingfrom
tion, it must standin a new relation to the classit represents
the critiqueof morality, Marx arrived at a generalconceptofrevolutionary
this
subjectivityas the "reflection' of iife in thought' Marx introduced
theory
reflexiveconceptofsubjectivity to describea qpe ofrevolutionary
ofbeing
andconsciousness
that growsout ofhistorical "necessity"instead
morimposed"abstractly''on the basisofpure moral principle' Reiectlng
alism,Marx wrote in a famous early ietter, "Until now the philosophers
world
hadthe solution to all riddles in their desks,and the stupid outside
Socicfl (New York Double
4. Karl Marx, writings oJthe YotngMau on Philosophyand
day,i967),35o.
50 AndrewFeenberg
simply had to open its mouth that the roastedpigeonsofabsolute science
might fly into it."5By contrast,N4arxclaimed,his theory simply explainsto
the "world" "its own actions" and thus articulatesthe historically evolved
content of the social movement. He wrote, "We merely show the world
why it actually struggles;and the awarenessof this is somethingthe world
/rlastacquire,evenif it doesnot want to."6And in his essay"On the Jewish
Question,"Marx concluded,"It is not enough that thought should seekto
realizeitself; reality must alsostrive toward thought."T
In the earlywritings, reflexivesubjectivitycorrespondsto socialrevolution just asabstractethicalsubjectivitycorrespondsto political revolution.
The one emergesfrom the "social instinct" of the proletariat and articulatesthe inner meaning of its actions,while the other reflectsthe t.rppr,rsrtion of"ought" and "is" asthey are experiencedby the isolatedindividual
in bourgeois society.But later writings are ambiguous, conservingonly
tracesofthis original conceptofsubjectivity, as,for example,in a passage
in the prefaceio CapitalwhereMarx writes of his critical rirethod that "so
far assuch criticism representsa class,it can only representthe classwhose
vocation in history is the overthrow ofthe capitalist mode of production
and the final abolition of all classes-the proletariat."sThis passagecontinuesto suggestthat Marxism is somehowrooted in the life experiencesof
the working class,although unfortunately Marx never explained exactly
how and to what extent.
Marx madea similarpoint more explicitlyin TheEighteenih
Brumaire
of LouisBonapartewithrespectto the pettFbourgeoisie.Marx writes: "just
as Iittle must one imagine that the democratic representatives
are indeed
all shopkeepersor enthusiasticchampions of shopkeepers.According to
their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as
heavenfiom earth. What makesthem representativesof the petty bourgeoisieis the fact that in their minds they do not ger beyond the limits
which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently
driven,theoretically,to the sameproblemsand solutionsto which material
interestand socialposition drives the latter practically.This is, in general,
the relationshipbet\,veen
the political and literary representatives
ofa class
s.Ibid.,zrz.
6. letter from Marx to Ruge(Sept.1843),ibid., p. 2r4 and quoted in HCC 77.
7. KarlMarx, Early Wrirings(London: C. A. Watts,1963),51-54.
S.KarlMa:'x, Capital (New York: Modern Library, 19o6),vol. r, zo.
Post-UtoPianMarxism 5t
theory was left beand they classthey represent.eEventhis rudimentary
programmatic referencesto
hind in his mature writings, wherehe offered
"historical necessity"in place
the "determinationofthought bybeing" and
this deterministic
of the more precise concept of reflexivity' Although
it also servesthe same
languageis often seenas a concessionto scientism'
in avoidingpolitifunction asthe earliertheory ofreflexive consciousness
calmoralism.
directly
Lukdcsdid not arrive at Marx's reflexiveconceptofsubjectivity
Hegelian
through the readingof Marx but indirectly through Marx's own
Hegelt
sources.Luk6cs'spre-Marxist Theory of the Novel recapitulated
critiqueofabstractethics'In that work, Lukics depictedthe novelistichero
the deas the bearerof a degradedidealism necessarilycorrelatedwith
gradedreality of bourgeois society' From the ironic standpoint of the
novelistand critic, reified societyand the nostalgiafor meaning are featuresofthe samedesolatespiritual landscape.By the tim ehewrote History
Luk6cshad concluded that achievingtranscensnd ClassConsciousness,
dence*ould require forms of collective opposition unavailableto the
individual in bourgeois societyand open only to the class'Like the early
Marx, Lukdcswasdeterminedto find a way to renewthe theory ofrevolution that avoidedthe pitfalls of individualistic moralism' Reflexivesubjectivity offered a solution that could also form the critical link between
Luk6cs'sinterpretation of Marxism and classicalGermany philosophy'
Thus,Luk6csnoted that "the deepaffinitiesbetweenhistoricalmaterialism
and Hegel'sphilosophy are clearly manifestedhere, for both conceiveof
theoryasthe self-knowledgeofreality" (HCC 16).For Luk6cs,asfor Hegei
conceivedasself-knowledgetranscends
andthe earlyMarx, consciousness
the oppositionofthought and being, subjectand object,"ought" and "is'"
This is the secretof what he calledthe "post-utopian attitude to history"
( H C Cz 8 ) .
T H E O R YA N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SI N L U X E M B U R G
RosaLuxemburg'stheory of massaction recoveredthe Marxist conceptof
reflexivesubjectivityfrom the completeoblivion into which it had fallen in
9. Karl Marx, The EighteetthBramaire of LouisBonaparte,in Karl Marx and Friedrich
rq69),rzr'
Engels.
Sclerled
ldorkJ(Ne\ York:lnternationalPublishers.
52 Andre, Feenberg
the SecondInternational. Her theory was inspired by the l9o5 Russian
Revolution,the first major massstrugglefor socialismsincethe Commune
of Paris.r0This was an immense, spontaneoussocial movement which
quickiy passedfrom basic economic protest to quite sophisticatedsocial
and political demandsand the creation of a new kind of revolutionary
organization,the "Soviet" or factory council.
The orthodox lvlarxism of the day held that the historical necessityof
the movement toward socialism was manifested in gradual union and
parliamentary struggle.More activist strategies,and especiallyviolence,
weredismissedasultraleft voluntarism.The Russianexperiencesuggested
a different way of connectingrevolutionary politics with historical determinism. The strugglesof r9o5 were violent and yet they clearly emerged
from the deepestdetermining forcesof the historical processrather than
from the insurrectionalfantasiesofpolitical leaders.In Luxemburg'sinterpretation of this movement,spontaneityreconcilessubject and object in
history. In the spontaneousstruggle,the proletariat at one and the same
time realizesthe necessityof the historical laws and imposesits will and
on the world.
consciousness
Luxemburg arguedagainstthe pseudoscientificunderstandingof theory prevalentin the SecondInternational. Sheproposeda historical concept of theory as a prolongation of action, the articulation of its inner
meaning. Ideasare the highestproduct of theory but they repreient the
Mere opinions are what Luxemburg
lowest level of classconsciousness.
calls a "theoretical and latent" classconsciousness.Class consciousness
achievesfull developmentnot in this contemplativeform, but in the "practical and active"expressionofclassaspirationsandsolidarityin revolutionary struggle.Theory must ceaseto be a mere representationof the rnner
as a historical force in
meaning of classstruggleto becomeconsciousness
that struggle.rrAs Lukecswaslater to explain it, "Proletarianthought is in
the first placemerely a theory of praxis which only gradually transforms
itselfinto a practicaltheory that overturns the real world" (HCC zos).
For Luxemburg, as for Lukiics,the party played a decisiverole in the
ro. RosaLuxemburg,"TheMass Stdke,the PoliticalPartyand the TradeUnions;'in RoJ,
Lu*etfuurg Speaks(New York Pathfinder,rgzo).
u. Ibid., r99.
j
Post-UtoPianMarxism53
from theory to practice, the latent to the active' "Organization,"
passage
and practice"
Lukdcswrote, "is the form ofthe mediation betweentheory
(HCC zqg).To the temporarily latent characterofthe socialistgoal corre"the
spondsthe historical reality of the Party' In relation to the masses,
partyis the objectificationoftheir own will (obscurethough this maybe to
themselves)"(HCC az). What is latent and theoreticalat any given momentmust be madepresentorganizationallyif it is later to becomepracticalin struggle.Like theory, the party representsthe still-latent meaningof
strugglesthat needonly achievesufficientbreadthand intensity to express
Theory and party organization
in revolutionaryconsciousness.
themselves
are thus joined to historical necessityby their expressive,hermeneutic
function,which is to grant consciousand explicit form to the implicit content ofthe sPontaneousstruggle.They overcomeutopianism and moralism insofarasthey derivehistorical necessityfrom spontaneitF.
From this Luxemburgian standpoint, political direction no longer has
anyofthe voluntaristictraits Marx reiected.It doesnot changethe fundathe significance
mentalorientationofthe movement,but rather expresses
ofongoing actions,therebyaiding the actorsto clarifu their own goals'"It
[the party] must immerse its own truth in the spontaneousmassmovement and raise it from the depths of economic necessity,where it was
conceived,on to the heights of free, consciousaction. In so doing it will
transformitself in the moment ofthe outbreak of revolution from a party
that makesdemandsto one that imposesan effectivereality.This change
from demandto reality becomesthe lever of the truly class-orientedand
truly revolutionary organization of the proletariat" (HCC 4t-42). Luxemburg'stheory of organization had such a great impact on Luk6csbecauseit dovetailedneatly with his own Hegelianinterpretation of Marx's
reflexi\.econceptof consciousness.
But did thistheory offer an adequate
explanationfor the revolutionary movementswhich followed the First
World War?Its intellectual eleganceand consistencywith Marxism were
no substitutefor this ultimate test,which took the form ofa confrontation
with Lenin'svery different approach and with the reality ofthe Russian
Revolution.Lukdcst reexamination of the debatesbetween Luxemburg
and Lenin left him firmly committed to practical Leninism, although we
will seethat he did not accept Lenint own self-interpretationand attemptedto substitutesomething quite different for it.
54
Andrew Feenberg
L U X E M B U R GO R L E N I N
Luxemburg'stheory ofthe revolution is more faithful to Marx than any
later contribution. However,just for that reason she cannot accurately
describemany important featuresof the revolutionary processthat followed World War I. The world had becomeso very unlike lvlarx'sthat his
ideasabout revolution, evenas developedby Lu-remburgafter 1905,were
seriouslymisleading.Luxemburg,Lukricsbelieved,had "the illusion ofan
'organic',purely proletarianrevolution" (HCC
3o3).Her imageofthe revolution wasunrealisticallysimple in three important respects:her extension
ofthe conceptof the proletariat to coverthe widest massesofthe population; her "over-estimation of the spontaneous,elemental forces of the
Revolution,"and her tendencyto believein an "ideologicalorganicgrowth
into socialism"(HCC zZs-zg). Sheconsistentlyoverestimatedthe unity of
the proletariatand the proletariancharacterofthe revolution, minimizing
the organizational consequencesof divissions within the classand the
"This false
complexity of allianceswith nonproletarianstrata and classes:
assessmentof the true driving forces leads to the decisivepoint of her
misinterpretation:to the underplayingofthe role ofthe party in the revolution and ofits consciouspolitical action, as opposedto the necessityof
being driven along by the elemental forces of economic development"
(HCCz7).t'z
Lenin'spartymaintained a considerableindependencefrom the massof
workers and on occasiontook initiatives without much regard for proletarianspontaneity.In Luxemburg'stheory,the independenceofthe party
would be the deathofthe dialecticin which it raisesthe level.ofstruggleof
the massesthrough articulatingthe implicit content ofclassaction.Lenin's
conceptionofa disciplinedminority leadingthe massmovementappeared
to her to be a voluntaristic illusion, already transcendedby the Marxist
conceptionofsocial revolution. Partyand classare not two distinct objects
for Luxemburg,but dialecticalmoments ofa singlecollectivesubjectiviry
The party, quite simply, can neyer take the classas its object, either of
knowledgeot of action. Rather,the role ofthe party is to be the extreme
limit ofthe subjectivityofthe class,the prolongation ofclassaction toward
Iffor Lenin the party should be pictured one stepaheadof
self-awareness.
rz. For a critique of Lukicst critique ofltxemburg, seeMichael Ldwy, "Lukiics et Rosa
Luxemburg:La Thiorie du Parti,"in l'Hoz me et Ia Sociiti 43-44 (lan.-llone 19n)
Post-UtoPianMarxism 55
party is better imagined
theclassit leadsasa vanguard,for Luxemburgthe
the classis alreadyhalfbehindthe class,pointing in the direction in which
moving.
consciouslY
role of
This differenceshows up significantly in their views on the
complete
tacticalplanning in the revolution' They were' of course, in
role in disagreementon such basicsas the importance of the party's
peace'
serninatingrevolutionary political propagandain times of social
more
and in the belief that the workers will revolt the sooner and the
"the more rapidly and more deeply,more energeticallythe
successfully,
educationalwork ofsocial democracyis carriedout amongstthem'"t3And
they could also agreeon the need for a party organizationto coordinate
sociallyor geographicallyseparatedstruggl€s.But beyond this minimum
begins,Lenin holding that the party can at leasttry-and
thedisagreement
sometimessucceed-in directing the struggleaccordingto a tacticalplan,
Luxemburgdismissingthis goal as impossibleand indeed harmful to the
movement.
Luxemburg believed that the sPontaneoustactical line that emerges
from-classstruggleis superior to any plan ofthe party leadership'To the
extentthat the necessarystruggleis the spontaneousstruggleand the party
asubordinateproduct ofthis spontaneity,thevery ideaoftactical planning
ofthe revolution is a contradiction in terms. Evenwhen wrong, the class
movement'sspontaneouschoiceshave the pathos of historical necessity
aboutthem and form an integral part ofthe learning processofthe class'
"Let us speakplainly," shewrote, "historically' the errors committed by a
truly revolutionarymovement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverestCentral Committee'"l4 Sheconcluded:"In general,
the tacticalpolicy of the SocialDemocracyis not something that can be
'invented.'
It is the product of a seriesof great€reativeacts of the oftenspontaneousclassstruggleseekingits way forward. . . ' The unconscious
comesbefore the conscious.The logic of the historical processcomes
beforethe subjectivelogic of the human beings who participate in the
historicprocess."r5
The key practicaldifferenceimplied by this disagreementconcernsthe
r3. Luxemburg,"The MassStrike,"r99.
r4. Ibid., r3o.
15.Ibid., r99.
56 AntlrewFeenberg
role of insurrection in proletarian revolution' Marx's critique of Jacobin
methods was prolonged in Luxemburg'stheory of the massstrike as the
form of movementofthe social revolution. Luxemburg arguedquite correctlythat a revolutionarymassstrike cannot be planned and controlledin
its technicaldetailsby a political party; however,she failed to understand
the limitations of the massstrike, which, by itself, is insufficient to assure
victory. As Trotslq later explainedthe problem: "Whatever its power and
masscharacter,the generalstrike doesnot settlethe problem ofpower; i1
while relying on the general
only posesit. To seizepower, it is necessary,
strike,to organizean insurrection."r6In tlris task tacticalplanning is essential, asLenin wasthe first to understandclearly'
Lukics argued that Lu.xemburg'stheory of the revolutionary process
was at least partially invalidated by the practical lessonsof the Russian
Revolution. Luxemburg had followed Marx in attempting to restrain the
political will ofthe working classso that it would listen to the deepervoice
ofits socialinstinct. But in the context ofthe revolutionary crisisfollowing
World War I, political will was an increasinglyimportant condition of
social advance.Lenin appearedto Lukdcsto have solvedthe problem of
joining the one to the other. The remaining diffrculty was to reconcile
Lenin'spractical methodswith Marxism' and this was the task Lukecsset
himself. Luk6cs'sattempt to produce an independent theory based on
Lenin'spracticeseemsto havebeen motivated in part by an implicit critique ofLenin's own self-interpretation.Certainlythe Russiandefendersof
Leninist orthodory sensedthe incompatibility of Luk6cs'sLeninism with
their own. If Lukdcshimself never openly addressedthe problems in Leninist theory,it wasno doubt becausehe felt it wouldbe impolitic to do so'
and perhapsalsobecausein the early rgzosstrictly philosophicaldisagreementswith Lenin did not seemasimportant aspractical agreement'
Unlike Lukics, Lenin had rernainedfaithful to the "orthodox" epistemology of the Second International "Center," as representedby such
thinkers asKarl Kautskyand G. V. Plekhanov.The reified categoriesLenin
derived from this epistemologypenetrated his own self-interpretation'
contradicting the revolutionary tendenciesof his thought' Orthodoxy's
:uilel' in Initiaive Socialtsfe
17( June1968):
16.LeonTrotsky,"Lesprobldmesde la guerrec
1965)'
(Paris:
de
Delphes'
Editions
9-1o. Cf. alsoVictor S erye,Il Aa I de la R ol,tio, R'sre
96.
Post-UtopiqnMarxism 57
chief theoreticalpositions included evoiutionary determinism, theory as
purescience,and organizationand strategyastechnicalapplicationofthis
science.Thesepositions had achieveda sort of classicalcoherencein the
SecondInternationalwhere they rationalizedthe basicallyreformist practiceof the movement.After World War I, thesesameideaswerethrust into
the whirlwind ofrevolutionary action with confusingresults.tT
Lukdcs'sreinterpretationofLenin must be understoodin the contextof
attemptsin the Westto break with the orthodox Marxism in which Lenin
still believed,and to devise a version of Leninism compatible with the
emphasison revolutionary subjectivity that had emergedas one of the
chiefcharacteristicsofthe postwar offensive.Theseattemptshad in common an implicit rejection of the authoritarian implications of Lenin's
technicism,inherited from his orthodox philosophical teachers.Lenin
himself was insensitiveto these implications. Technicismoffered a languagein which to articulate his practicein a revolutionary crisis.He believedthat the revolutionary movement could not spontaneouslyresolve
thecrisisit provoked,but awaitedthe action ofa consciousminority for its
resolution.History would have to becomethe object of knowledge and
techniqueto realizeits "necessary"progress.Lenin took it for grantedthat
the party could usethe lawsofhistory to achievehistoricallypossibleends.
From this point of view the entire society,including the proletariat,
appearsas an object, relatively predictable and subject to control form
above.Historicalnecessityis not somuch discoveredin the giganticpower
ofits unfolding, asit is for Marx and Luxemburg,asgraspedtechnicallyin
the interestsofpower. So obviousand unobjectionabledid this instrumental perspectiveseemto Lenin that he naivelyclaimed that "Marxism . . .
placesat their lthe party'sl disposalthe mighty force of millions and millions of workers."l8This approach to history contradicts the original
Marxian reflexivetheory of subjectivity,designedto transcendprecisely
sucha voluntaristic conception of struggle.It seemedthereforeto revrve
the Jacobin-Blanquistrevolutionary methodsthat Marx had long ago rejected.The old orthodory had neverhad to facetheseparadoxicalconsequencesofits technicistinterpretation of Marxism becauseits union and
1;. For a stimulatingifcontentious surveyolthe period, seeGeorgeLichtheim, Matxism:
An Historicaland Critical Sadl, (New York Columbia UniversityPress,1964).
18.V L Lerin, EJserltialWorksofLenin (Netr York Bantam,1966),89.
58 AndrewFeenberg
parliamentarypractice could easilybe seenas expressingthe long-range
historicalnecessityofcapitalist socialevolution. But in an insurrectionarv
context, the theory revealedits anti-lvlarxist implications with a venfiom
geance,particularly in Leninlsrelianceon Kautskian"consciousness
withouC' to justify a type of political vanguardismKautsky would never
havecondoned.This argument,containedin Lenin's What Is to Be Done?,
deservesfurther considerationfor what it showsabout the doctrine Lukiics
passedover in silencein elaboratinghis own interpretation of Leninism-re
Like his orthodox teachers,Lenin believedthat Marxism was a pure
science,that it came "from without" and was in no way a product of
proletarianclassstruggle,even if it took that struggleas its privileged
object of study. This Kautskian position correspondedto a respectable
epistemologicalmodel of scienceand assignedrevolutionary intellectuals
the missionaryrole ofspreading socialistideas,the sourceofwhich wasto
be sought in Marxism rather than in the spontaneousideology of the
proletariat. Lenin carried the argument still further, claiming that the
spontaneousbeliefsofthe proletariat simply reflectedbourgeoisideology,
immeasurably
"becauseit is more fully developedand becauseit possesses
more opportunities ofbeing distributed."2oHaving denied all ideological
creativity to the massofworkers, Lenin proceededto sharpenthe separation between the working class and the theoreticians of socialism. In
Lenin'sview, theory came from "science"and not from the working class
and its struggles.Lenin consideredthis distinction so important that to
avoid any confusionhe called "the intellectuals,"including Marx and EnAnd, at anotherpoint, he
gels,"representatives
ofthe propertied classes."'zr
.theory,
they
insisted that when workers participate in creating socialist
"take part not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians. . . ; in other
19.The silenceis broken in luk5cs\ recentlypublished A Deleaseof History and Class
Consciolstest Tailism and the Dialectic trans. E. Leslie (London and New York Verso,
from without in termsofwhat I
2ooo).Here LukdcsexplainsLenin'stheory ofconsciousness
call exemplaryaction.The proletariat,he claims,is unique becausein certainspecifrctl?es
ofsituations it can grasp lhe resultsof action taken by the Party on the basisof a correct
theoreticalknowledgeofthe societyrather than on the basisofits own averagethoughtsand
feelings,and, in the heat ofthe moment, leap to the higher level ofunderstandingofsociety
exemplifiedbythe party'sacts.This correspondsrather well to Lenin'ssenseofwhat he was
actually doing, but not to his theoreticalaccount,asI arguehere.
2c. Lenin, EssentialWorl<s,vol. r, r3o.
zr. tbi<l..vol. r, rzz.
Post-IltoPianMarxism 59
they are able' more or less'to
words,they take p art only lo rhe exlentthat
that knowledge"'?2
acquirethe knowledgeoftheir ageand advance
the orthoOnceLenin'sargument is pursued to its logical conclusion'
result' Here theory
dox premisesfrom which he began yield an absurd
nothing "on its
gripsthe masseswith avengeance.The proletariatachieves
ideology and its
own,"for its spontaneityhas been reducedto bourgeois
come from an
socialisttheoreticiansare "intellectuals,""scientists,"and
beyond or from the bourgeoisie'The rigid opposition of
epistemological
"*ithin und "without" has converted the proletariat into an ideological
tabularasa.Why did Lenin push orthodoxy to theseabsurd conclusions?
This appearsto havebeen the only fundamental philosophicalargument
Unforhe could formulate for justifiing the creationofa vanguardparty
in
tunately,the argument is incornpatiblewith Marxism, which is refuted
"strives toward
its basisif it cannot find in the proletariat a reality that
thought" even as revolutionary ideasstrive to enter reality as a material
force.
Consistencyshould not be considereda virtue in arguing for a position
asoierdrawn as Lenin's, and Lenin was not in fact perfectly consistent'
in his writings show that he did not want to pay the
Many other passages
irll priceofoverthrowing Marxism to defendhis theory ofthe party' Even
Wat Is ToBeDoneloffered an alternativetheory accordingto which "the
'spontaneous
element',in essencerepresentsnothing more nor lessthan
consciousness
in an embryonic form."23Here the class"strives toward
thought" asMarxism requires.But this alternativeremainedundeveloped'
no doubt becauseLenin did not know how to reconcile it with his vanguardism.The conclusionis inescapablethat Lenin lackedthe theoretical
meansto developa properly Marxist explanationfor his own Practice
THE .'{CTUALITY,' OF THE REVOIUTION
Confrontedwith the successofLenin's organizationalinnovationsand the
incompetence,
at leastin Marxist lerms, ofhis philosophicalexplanations
for them, Lukdcs attempted to reduce the tension between theory and
practice.He reformulated the debatebetweenLuxemburg and Lenin in
zz.Ibid., vol. r, t3o.
23.lbid..vol.l. 12r.
60
AndrewFeenberg
historical terms, situating their principal ideas with respectto different
stagesin the revolutionaryprocess'Lukiics'sfirst sketchofsuch a theory is
to be found in an article originally published in Die Internationalein ryzt.
Herehe defendedthe new insurrectionaltactic ofthe GermanCommunist
party, which Clara Zetkin had attackedin the name ofRosa Luxemburg's
theory of revolutionary spontaneity.Luk6csasked:"Do the relationsbetween party and massremain the samein the courseofthe entire revolutionary process,or is this relation also a process,which activelyand passively undergoesthe compulsion of the dialectical transformation and
overthrow ofthe total process?"24
In reply he suggestedthe basisof his later theory of the revolutionary
process:the idea of a changing relation between spontaneity and consciousnessin the courseofhistory. Lukricsdistinguishedtwo main stages.
Throughout the first and longeststage,massaction is essentiallyspontaneous. It arises"reactively'' under the immediate compulsion of the economiclaws, and all the party cando is to bring the meaningofsuch actions
During this stage,"the economic and consequentlythe
to consciousness.
'natural
law.'"25To
political and ideologicalprocess"has"the necessityofa
this situation there correspondsthe "classical"conception of Marxism, as
representedby Marx, Engels,and Luxemburg,with its emphasison historical inevitability and the expressiverole ofthe party. But, there is another
side to the Marxist theory of revolution, which emphasizesthe goal of
"human control of history," the "realm of freedom." It is true, Lukdcs
admitted, that in classicalMarxist thought this goal is alwaysput offto a
future socialistsocietf. But Lukiics arguedthat freedom is not so much a
realm as a process,and one which begins already in the fevolutionary
movementitself.If the "leap" into the realm offreedom discussedby Marx
and Engelsis conceivedasa suddenbreakin the continuity ofhistory, then
freedombecomesa transcendentideal,not a living force,and the problem
of moralism reappears.On the contrary, it must be seenasthe result of a
gradual developmentin which, with the approachofthe revolution, conplaysa prefigurativerole.
sciousness
a second main stagein the revolutionary
--Thus Lukiics distinguished
24. Georg Lukics, "spontaneitiit der Massen,Aktivitiit der Parterl' in Geschithteuntl
(Berlin: Luchterhand,1968),136(my tnnslation).
Klassenbewusstsein
z5.Ibid.,r37.
Post-UtoPianMarxistl
61
the stageofthe final crisisof capitalism,during which the growth
process,
offreedomis reflectedin a more activerole for the party.During this stage'
thepartf mayhaveto follow a vanguardstrategysuchasthat ofthe Russian
or German Communists, energizing the working classby providing an
exampleof a revolutionary initiative to help it overcomeits "lethargf"'26
Luk6csdid not retain the exactterms ofthis discussionin Histoly and Class
and,Lenin,but he continuedto developthe ideaofa gradual
Consciousness
in the courseof
changein the relation of spontaneityand consciousness
the revolutionary process.Indeed' Lenin wasbasedon the theory of the
secondstage:"Lenint concept of party organization," he wrote there,
"presupposesthe fact-the actuality-of the revolution."2TThis idea was
broughtin constantlyto explain the differencesbetweenLenint approach
andtraditional Marxist strategyand organization.
arguedthat asthe revolution
ln Historyand ClassConsciousness,Lukfcs
the next step on the path to socialismbecomeslessand less
approaches,
obvious;the spontaneousreaction of the classto the operation of the
economiclaws is no longer an adequateguide and actionsmust be based
increasinglyon the objectiYePotentialitiesof the society.Instrumental
considerationstake their placealongsideexpressiveonesin the life ofthe
party:"The closerthis processcomesto its goalthe more urgent it becomes
for the proletariat to understandits own historical mission and the more
will determineeach
vigorouslyand directly proletarianclassconsciousness
ofits actions.For the blind power of the forcesat work will only advance
'automatically'
to their goal of self-annihilationaslong asthat goal is not
'realm
of freedom'
within reach.When the moment of transition to the
arrivesthis will become apparentjust becausethe blind forcesreally will
hurtle blindly towards the abyss,and only the consciouswill ofthe proIetariatwill be able to savemankind from the-impending catastrophe"
(HCC 69-7o). Here wasto be found the justification for Lenin'sapparent
voluntarism.As the theoretician of the final crisis of capitalism,Lenin
better than the represenunderstoodthe increasingrole of consciousness
tativesof the "classical"Left. His break with the organizationaland strategic theory of the Marxist tradition looked like a return to JacobinBlanquistmethodsout ofthe distant past,but in fact, Lukiicsargued,this
26.lbid.,r41.
27.L:ukecs,Lenin. 26,
62. AndrewFeenberg
was no nostalgicbackward glancebut a much-neededadjustment of the
working-classmovementto the demandsofthe new revolutionary era.
PARTY, CLASS. AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
This historical justification of Leninism raisesonce again the problem of
the deeperrelation of theory and practicethat Marx originally addressed
with the conceptof reflexivesubjectivity.Even if the sort of party Lenin
createdis the most effectivein a revolutionarycrisis,it remainsto be seenif
anything more than opportunity links it to the proletariat. This is not a
merely theoretical concern, as the history of Stalinism has shown. It is
unfortunate that Lukdcs'searlyinterpretation ofLeninism should now be
widely condemnedas Stalinistwhen in fact he was attempting to replace
the implicit technicismof Lenin's own self-interpretationthat bore such
bitter fruit under Stalin.'z8
Marxistswerewell awarethat theory containedcontentswith no tmmediaterelation to the everydaylife ofthe working class,for example,abstract
ideasabout the circulation of money or the schemataof reproduction of
capital. Theseideascan be called "proletarian" only in the very limited
sensethatthey,like Marxist thought in general,lieunder the horizon ofthe
classstandpoint ofthe proletariat.This horizon, Lukiicsargued,is defined
by the possibility of a dialecticaltranscendenceof bourgeois reification,
both in practiceand theory.But suchideasdo notbring the meaningofany
They thus "representthe proletariat,"in
specificaction to consciousness.
Marx's phrase,only scientificallSnot asmomentsin its self-consciousness.
The Leninist dilemma oftheory and practiceariseswhen the successof
the movementdependson translatingideasof this tlpe into action.rr'\4lat
to action is insuffihappenswhen the mere addition ofself-consciousness
cient, when "what must be done" no longer follows in a smooth continuum alongthe path ofthe actualizationofthe latent meaningofspontaneous action? Lenin argued that in this situation the party must come
forward asan independenthistoricalsubject.The massesthen appearedas
just another objective condition the party had to take into account in
and the Party,see
28. For a fulthe! discussionof Lukrics'stheory ofclass consciousness
(New
York Oxford
Andrew Feenberg,Lukdcs,Marx and the Soutcesof Oitical Theory
UniversityPress,1986),chap.5.
PostlJtoqiatlMarxism
63
accountis the complexcommunicapursuingits goals.What is lostin this
interaction of party and class.It is this
ii* uniro.iut climensionof the
interactionthatmustexplaintheauthorityoftheparty'whichhasno
Luk6cstried to reconstruct
coercivebasisand which is not itself technical'
c o n s j s t e nwl i t h M a r xi s m '
l h i sa s p e coi f t h e r e l a t i o ni n I w a ym o r e
Luk6csargued'The risk
Thereare good practical reasonsfor doing so'
ofsectarianismisobviouswhentl-reoreticallyinspiredpartyinitiatives
leavethenassesfarbehindinorderlorespond..correctly''toobjective
"The Communist Party
instrumentallequirements.Thus Lukics wrote'
doesnotfunctionasastand.infortheproletariatevenintheory''(HCC
correlationoftechone canseeclearlythe dialectical
327).In sectarianrsm
fall back inio a
ni.ir. und ethical idealism:the party may unconsciously
disguisedas
moral stancein relation to soctety,posing ethical exigencies
scientificcertainties.sectarianismcanbeavoidedonlywheretheParty
The trick is to do so
continuesto advancethe proletarianlearning process
'
without simply following the class(HCC 3zo-21' 326-27)
offensively,
preciselyto the
corresponds
this analysisof sectarianism
Surprisingly,
Kolakowski'for
theorywidely attributed to Lukiicsby recentscholarship
conexample,arguesthat since, according to Lukdcs' proletarian-class
the emplrris embodiedin rhe party, the party can safelyignore
sciousness
he
of the proletariatand act on its own' For Lukdcs'
cal consciousness
saysis that
concludes,"the party is alwaysright "2eYetwhat Lukiicsactually
to
given the active role of the party, it must possessthe correct tlleory
soon
survive,"for otherwise the consequencesof a false theory would
to
destroyit" (HCC tzil. What Kolakowski missesis Lukdcs'sattempt
actual
overcomeLenin's technicistself-understanding,and to explain the
in
sociallearningprocessLeninism inrpliedfor Westernrevolutionaries
in performthisperiod.(This is, ofcourse,not to saythat they succeeded
prescriptions.)
ing accordingto Lukdcs's
to distinguish"classical"expressive
Lukdcsarguedthat it is necessary
actsof the party, which follow and renderexplicit the contentof class
action,from a new t1.peofexemplary party interventionthat precedesclass
actions,
ofwhich it makesvisibleto the classfor the first tinre'
the necessitl'
In both casesthe party'sactsare tloubly meant' oncein function of the
z9'I,eszekKolaktlwski.M|1il('l1tfcl1tso'fM||fxisln:j-1.hcflrcakdowt(NewVlrk:oxfold
Llniversit,v
Press,r978),.:lt:.
64
AndrewFeenberg
particular obiectivetheyaim at, and then a secondtime in function oftheir
expectedimpact on classconsciousness.
But in the era of the actuality of
the revolution, the passagefrom latent theoretical conceptsto practical
and activeclassconsciousness
must be immensely acceleratedto coincide
with the rhphms of instrumental effectivenessin a political crisis. This
coincidencecan be achievedwhere,bytheir exemplaryform, instrumental
actions also serve to advanceconsciousness.Thus Luk6cs wrote: "The
struggleof the Communist party is focusedupon the classconscrousness
of the proletariat. Its organisationalseparation from the classdoes not
meanin this casethat it wishesto do battle for its interestson its behalfand
in its place. . . . Should it do this, asoccasionallyhappensin the courseof
:
revolution, then it is not the first instance an attempt to fight for the
objectivegoals of the strugglein question (for in the long run thesecan
;'
l
I
onlybe won or retainedby the classitself), but only an attempt to advance
i
or acceleratethe developmentofclassconsciousness"(HCC 326).
:
But what is to guide the partyin making suchdaring thrustsbeyondthe
achievedlevelofworking-classconsciousness?
And what guaranteesthat it
will really remain the party of the classin engagingin such prefigurative
actions?Lukecst theory ofclassconsciousness
wasdesignedto solvethese
problems by explaining the dependenceof the party on the classevenin
the secondstage,characterizedby party autonomy and consciousinitiative. Lukics distinguished between the conceptof class consciousness,
basedon the objectivedeterminantsof the everydayactivity of the class,
and.the actual thoughtsand t'eelingsof membersof the class.The former
:
were derived by theoretical analysisand the latter observedempirically.
'signifcance
"Classconsciousness,"
as Lukics now defined it, would be the
ofclassaction representedas"objectivelypossible"contentsofconsciousnesswith which membersof the classmight aticulate the meaningof their
lives. Experienceshowed that the results of empirical observationoften
deviatedsignificantlyfrom theoreticalexpectations.In practice,the objectively possiblebeliefsdescribedin the theoretical model had to compete,
and not alwaysvery successfully,
with ideasborrowed from other classes
or
developedidiosy'r.rcratically
from a mixture ofsources.The revolution was
i.
.
to beihe processin which tl.regapbetweenmodel and realitywasgradually
reduced(HCC sr).
The relation ofpartyand classcanbe analyzedon this basisin a way that
doesjustice both to Marx's and Luxemburgt insistenceon the reflexive
i
Marxism 65
PosFutoqian
natureofclassconsciousness'andtoLenirlsinsistenceontheindependent
to interPret the situation ofthe classin
roleoftheory. The party attempts
consciousness'understood as the
u..oadurla.with the concept of class
of which havenot yet occurred'
unarticulatedmeaningofclassactions some
in the expectationthat' if it is
Thismeaningcan be "imputed" to the class
itself in the party's language
correctlyinterpreted,the classwill recognize
back into action by the
andacts.The translation ofthese imputed contents
advancesto higher
classcompletesthe cyclein which classconsciousness
the ideas
Ievels.In this model of the developmentof classconsciousness'
in the sensethat
the party brings to the classcome both "from without"'
they reflectthe
theyarisefiom theory, and "from within," in the sensethat
(fuiure) truth of classaction' Luk6cs'stheory worked well in savingthe
rcflexiveconcept of theory and the party, while also accounting
classical
identift
for the increasinglycommon situations in which theory could
action'
instrumentallydecisivetasksnot taken up sPontaneouslyby class
Note,however,that here Lenint scientific-technicalself-understanding
is completelyinverted.The party doesnot becomethe subjectof history
an
throughits independentactions.Rather,theseactionsPosethe Party as
objectbeforethe class.Thus Luk6csdescribedthe party, evenat its most
active,in the passivemode. He calledit the "visible and organisedincarnation of (the proletarian) classconsciousness"(HCC +z)' And' he wrote:
"The Communist party must exist asan independentorganisationso that
givenhistorthe proletariatmay be ableto seeits own classconsciousness
icalshape.And likewise,so that in everyeventof dailylife the point ofview
demandedby the interests of the classas a whole may receivea clear
formulation that every worker can understand' And, finally, so that the
of its own existenceas a class"(HCC
wholeclassmay becomefully ar,r'are
326).
The partydoesnot have"at its disposal"millions ofproletarians'but on
the contrary, it is those millions who havethe party at their disposal'to
believeor disbelieve,to acceptor reject' to follow or opposeon the basisof
its success
in discoveringand communicating the next "objectivelypossible" step in the evolution of classconsciousness'The apparently contingenttechnicalrelation ofparty to classin Lenin'stheory is subordinated
hereto a deeper"internal cause"that makesthis technicalrelation possible
in the first place.The party, evenin its acts,becomesthe objectificationof
classconsciousness.
It is not a mechanismofsocial control in the serviceof
66
AndrewFeenberg
the revolution; it is there to be "seen," and the sight of it inspires the
overthrow of the society.
THE STATE AND THE MASS
Lukdcs'ssynthesisof Luxemburgand Lenin drew both expressiveand instrumentalforms ofaction togetherunder the reflexiveconceptofsubjectivity. Aithough he lackedthe term, Lukdcsclearlygraspedthe conceptof
exemplaryaction,which suppliedthe mediatinglinkbetween the aPparent
contraries.The synthesisbroke down, however,when Luk6csturned from
explaining the relation of partF to classbefore the revolution to their
relation afterwardin the socialiststate.Once the party'sactsbecameactsof
state,the informal popular controls under which it developedcould no
longer ensureits subordination to the class,and yet Luk6csproposedno
new controls capableof preventing a regressionto Jacobinvoluntarism.
Lukfcst discussionofsocialismis neverthelessinterestingasan attempt to
sketchthe outlines of a public spherebasedon a social movement rather
than on "politics" in the usualsenseofthe term. The bourgeoisparliamerrtary public spherewas to be transcendedthrough forms of collectiveaction that went beyondmereverbalpropagandaaddressedto the individual
consciousnessof the isolated voter. The social basis of this new public
spherewasthe Soviet,or workers'council,which overcamethe isolationof
the individual and the split betweeneconomic and political life on which
this isolation is based.
Luk6cs'sdescription of the Sovietshas a distinctly Luxemburgiancast,
and reflectsher own analysisofsimilar phenomenain the r9o5'Revolution.
For both Luxemburgand Luklcs, the Sovietsrepresentthe point oftransition from a reactivespontaneitFunder the impulse ofthe economiclawsto
a creativesocialmovementcapableofrestructuring society.To explainthis
transition, Lukiics framed Luxemburg'sanalysisin terms of his theory of
the transcendenceof reification in a proletarian consciousnessoriented
that summarizesthis
toward the "totality'' ofsociety.Here is a long passage
extraordinarytheory:
the indivisible unity
The Sovietsystem,for example,alwaysestablishes
of economicsand politics by relating the concreteexistenceof men-
Post-UtopiaflMarxism
67
their immediate daily interests,etc.-to the essentialquestionsof society as a whole. it also establishesthe unity in objectivereality where
bourgeoisclassinterestscreatedthe "division of labor" aboveall, the
unity ofthe power "apparatus"(army,police,government,the law etc.)
and "the people." . . . Everywhere,the Sovietsystemdoesits utmost to
relate human activity to general questionsconcerning the state, the
economy,culture, etc.,while fighting to ensurethat the regulation ofall
such questionsdoesnot becomethe privilege of an exclusivebureaucratic group remote from social life as a whole. Becausethe Soviet
system,the proletarianstate,makessocietyawareofthe real connection
betweenall moments of sociallife (and later objectivelyunites those
which are asyet objectivelyseparate-town and country, for example,
intellectualand manual labor, etc.-it is a decisivefactor in the orqanization ofthe proletariat asa class."3o
This description of the Sovietsbegins to suggesta theory of socialist
citizer.rship,
and as such it marks a definite advanceover most Marxist
discussions
ofsocialist politics, which waverbetweenutopian speculation
and unimaginativeappealsto the example of existing bourgeois democratic forms. And yet it is puzzling that neither here nor elsewheredid
Lukdcsdiscussthe institutional aspectsofthe socialiststate,suchasvoting,
the organizationofpublic debate,competition betweenparties,the rights
of individuals and groups, and so on. How important is the missing institutionaltheory from a Marxist standpoint?Given Marxt frequent criticismof the limitations of capitalistdemocracy,and the latter Communlst
record in this regard, one might imagine that Lukilcst omission is quite
"orthodox."Yet
the one text in which Marx examinesworkers' power, The
Civil War in France,contains extensivediseussionof the institutional
structureofthe socialiststate.This discussionis governedby the original
impulseof Marx's earlycritique ofpolitical revolution, which is the search
for a way of subordinatingthe new socialiststateto the social movement.
Marx judgessomemeansinherited from capitalistdemocracyeffectivefor
thispurpose(suchasvoting), and otherscounterproductive(suchasseparation of powers).\,\4retherone agreeswith his conclusionsor not, it is
30. L\k6.s, Lcnin, 67-68.
68 AndrewFeenberg
clearthat he took seriouslythe dangerofa new dictatorship arisingon the
back of the revolution. How could he not with the example of the two
Napoleonsfreshin his mind?
Ratherthan developingan institutional theory ofthis sort, Lukdcsju'ttaposedhis theory of the Sovietswith a theory of the vanguard party
derivedfrom the first few yearsofthe Russianexample.He wrote that "the
party's role in a revolution-the masterlyidea of the early Lenin-is even
more important and more decisivein the period of transition to socialism
than in the preparatoryperiod."3tAnd he arguedthat the apparentcontradiction betweenthe authority ofthe party and the democratictasksof the
revolution is in fact "the dialectically correct solution to the objective
contradictions" of the situation.32This only makes senseif the mechanisms that ensuredthe subordination of the party to the classbefore the
revolution will work afterwardto preventthe autonomizationofthe state.
But that is not the case.As we haveseen,Lukdcsmadea convincingcasefor
the ideathat beforethe revolution the party could leadthrough exemplary .
actions lying at the intersectionof instrumental and communicativeexigencies.In this way the party would advancethe movement politically
while retaining and enlarging its baseof popular support. But after the
revolution the situation has changed,and the party is not forced to seek
compromisesbetweenthe instrumental requirementsof effectivestrategic
action and the communicativeconditions of maintaining a leading relationship to the class.Instead,the party focuseson gaining control ofa new
baseofpower, the coerciveand administrativeinstitutions ofthe modern
stateand the tremendouspropagandameansat its disposal.
What differencedoes this make?The Sovietscannot play the role in
relation to the new state played earlier by proletarian spontaneity as a
correctiveand verification of the party's line. The party's existencets no
longer rooted in a masslearning process;it now finds itselfat the summit
ofthe technicalbureaucraciesin chargeofrunning an industrial societyin
which workersappearassimplesubordinates.Where before,Lukiicscould
3L Ibid.,86.
32.Ibid., 82.Contrary to Kolakowski,statementssuch asthesewere not meant to iusti&
eliminating the Sovietsin favo! ofthe party (Kolakowoski,Mait c' urentsof Marxism,283).
Luktrcsstill regardedthe Sovietsas the cote of the socialiststate.Luk:ics'sProblem in this
period wasthat he affirmed ,ort Sovietsand Pafiywithout offering an ad€quateaccountof
their relations.
Post-UtoPianMarxistn 69
theory would soon destroy" the
write that the "consequencesof a false
price for their leaders'errors
party,now it is the peoplewho must pay the
to class'conscious(gCC gzz).The back-and-forth movementfrom party
supposedto advancein
;ess to spontaneity,through which both were
of modern management'
synergy,is replacedby the command structure
the party at this point be
By no stretchof the imagination can the actsof
describedasmomentsin the self-reflectionofthe class'
a historical
One might arguethat Lenin had few choicesas a leaderof
he wascommovementwhile still expressingconcern about the direction
pelledby circumstanceto take' Certainly the single-partystateestablished
iffor
in Russiaought to havebeen a subjectfor concernamong Marxists'
h
no other reason,on the basis of a reading of The Civil War in France'
seemedobviousto Marx in r87rthat new institutional structuresofsocialist democracywould be required to maintain the socialand emancipatory
characterofthe movement.Yet it was not at all obvious to Luk6cs'nor to
manyothersin his position in the r9zos.Instead,he arrivedtheoreticallyat
thesamecontradictionat which Lenin arrived practically:the assertionof
the sirnultaneousand increasedrole ofboth the massesand the Communistparty in a single-partySovietstate.In practice,this contradiction was
resolvedby the collapseofthe socialmovement and the creationof a new
kind oftyranny without precedentin Marxist theory'
The inability of most revolutionary Communistsin the 192osto foresee
and forestallthe Stalinist catastrophewas due to a deep failure of theory
andimagination.The causeofthis failure was twofold' On the one hand'
thinkersandactivistslike Luk6csand Lenin confusedemergencymeasures
takenin the shadowof a revolution in a backward country with fundamentalchangesin the nature ofthe public sphereunder socialism'C)nthe
other hand, and as a result of this first errijr, they underestimatedthe
validityofthe classicteachingsconcerningthe political and legalpreconditions of democracydevelopedin the courseof severalcenturiesofbourgeoisand Marxist reflection and experience.The consequencesof this
failurearestill very much with us and representthe innel theoreticallimit
of the dominant forms of Communism down to the presentday.3t
o.fDefiocfitization (N33 Luk:icshimself nevertnnscended them. Seehis The Process
bany:SUNYPress,rggr). For a contemporaryaccountofthe problemsin the Maniist iheory
ofthe state,seePaulThomas,Alier Pohrics(New York Routledge,1994)
(OIITRONIING
},IAS5
DT},|()OAfl
TTOIN(II.(IGY:
AND
INDUSTNhI
ili;,:r:r,i:l
i ,,.1Ii!
ili|i,r:iiillii.'r
i.i:till,riii!;,:,ii:,Illl li,lla,iri+:;L
TDIITD
BY'(IIINP.},I(((}R}{Ifl(
DUI(T
UNIVIIIITY
PITI' l}UnHAI
ft{Dt()ilD(}N
l00l
t
@ uooaDuke University Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United Statesof
America on acid-fteepaper co
Designedby Amy Ruth Buchanan
Typesetin Minion by Keptone
T)?esetting,lnc.
Library of CongressCataloging-inPublication Data appearon the last
printed pageofthis book.