Alan Jones' article on Lukacs in The Red Mole of June 15th, despite a number of generally correct criticisms, does not furnish an adequate assessment of Lukacs' work on a number of key questions. Thus Alan Jones writes of Lukacs:
*His book on Lenin is thought provoking, and its concept of the 'actuality of the revolution' is a key one, but unfortunately the book is marred by being based on a series of statements which are straightforward lies such as for example that Lenin was initially alone in opposing from the first the First World War from a revolutionary defeatist position."
Lukacs' Lenin deserves better than the book reviewers feeble accolade that it is "thought provoking". The book is in fact for and away the best account we have of Leninism as a theory. (The Afterword written by Lukacs over four decades later is, of course, a quite different matter). The concept of the *actuality of the revolution", though given intriguing expression in this work, is perhaps its most problematic single thesis since it does not concentrate the attention of revolutionaries on the necessarily conjunctural nature of any revolutionary situation and allows Lukacs to gloss over the debates uround the thesis of the permanent revolution. The statement that the book contains "a scries of. straightforward lies" is wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The specific example given of such a lies shows this. Lukacs argues that Lenin's insistence that the imperialist war should be tured into a civil war was an original and outstanding contribution, both theretically and politically, to the revolutionary movement. He is quite correct to do so. Consider the following account of the Zimmerwald Conference to be found in Isaac Deutscher's The Prophet Armed:
"A minority, grouped around Lenin, who for the first time now came forward as the protagonist of an international and not merely of a Kussian trend in socialism, urged the conference to adopt a defeatist attitude towards all warring governments, to call upon the peoples to turn the imperialist war into a civil war", and to proclaim the need of a new International. This the majority refused to do. On most points Trotsky was in agreement with Lenin, although he would not endorse Lenin's revolutionary defeatism. (It was, he wrote, in the interest of socialism that the war should end 'without victors or vanqushed".) He held, moreover, that these dif terences should be transcended so as to enable the conference unanimously to condemn the war. In this everybody concurred, and Trotsky was asked to draw up a statement of principles which was soon to become famous as the Zimmerwald Manifesto... Rousing though it was, the Manifesto was vague in its conclusions. It did not call for civil war to put an end to the imperialist war; and it did not envisage a new International. The Conference adopted the Manifesto unanimously, but Lenin's group placed their reservations on record." (The Prophet Armed, p. 226).
Of course, a great deal more could be written about the precise positions adoptad by Lenin and other leading revolutionaries on the war but none of its would justify describing Lukacs, or Deutscher's, account as a "straightforward lie".
There are other issues raised by Lukacs' work that Alan Jones treats rather too summarily. Lukacs did indeed furnish theoretical cover to the Stalinist version of "socialist realism" but it also worth pointing out that the only book he ever devoted to a Soviet author was his recent Solzhenitsyn where he argues that the latter was the supreme living exponent of "socialist realissa", In itself, of course, this judgement on Solzhenitsyn does not make the significant political reservations it is necessary to make about Solzhenitsyn, but it cannot simply be written off as intellectual decay and compromise with Stalin" as cun much of Lukacs earlier literary criticism. Alan Jones attacks those who *glority his (Lukacs") undoubted intellectual achievements while ignoring his political activities". This is quite correct but Alan Jones does rot refer to any of Lukees' political activities before the mid-twenties, Prior to this time Lukaes had been one of the founders of: the Hungarian Communist Party, a Conunissar in the Hungarian Commune, and later, in exile, one of the most gifted exponents of the ultraJeft of the German Communist Party. If our assessment of Lukacs does not cover these episodes then we miss much that is most interesting in Lukacs political development, not because Lukacs was at all correct in the positions he adopted during this period, but because he did pose a number of vital questions at this time which were later to be ignored, not least by Lnicacs himself; his text "The Role of Morality in Communist Production", for example, speaks of the danger of bureaucratic degenera. tion of the revolutionary state and envisages the necessity of a political revolution to check this. One should certainly beware of constructing a myth that Lukacs political activities were blameless until his endorsement of "socialism in one country " since his theses on political questions in this pennd were often extremely incorrect: eg. his position on the role of the Communist Party during the Hungarian Commune or his later theses on Parliamentarism. But just as Alan Jones justly indicates that in the field of philosophy Lukacshad un ability to pose correctly questions that he did not answer correctly, so this is also the case with some of his earlier political writings. One reason why it is important to acknowledge this is that it strengthens Alan Jones' own criticism of what later became of Lukacs. His early writings suggest that he could have made a major contribution to the revolutionary movement on the political as well as philosophical level. The fact that Lukacs became a leading luminary in Stalin's peace campaigns and abandoned revolutionary politics then becomes an even greater. indictment of his own pact with Stalinism. The diverse deviations espoused by Lukaes in the course of his long life form a complex unity which must be understood as a whole, relating his political to his theoretical work without false short cuts.
The theme of Alan Jomes article was that Marxism should always know how to extract any critical or scientific element in bourgeois thought and restructure it in the context of revolutionary Marxist theory, We must also learn to perform this operation on the works of those writers whose thought was distorted or stunted by Stalinism but still has some genuine Marist content.
ALAN JONES REPLIES:
Robin Blackbur has rather the advantage in that he can pick out one or two points, whereas I had to 1,500 words. This fairly obvioualy cannot be done to everyone's satisinction. Also, given the limited space внь t cannot take up, much ast woold take to. in onler to strengthen my case, the minor points concemng Solzhenitaya, Lukacs" early political nettities and the "actuality of the revolution The main point Cde. Blackbum feels is important Lenin clearly, we will find that it has a whole series of curiosities both in what is emphasised and, more importantly, in what is left out. Of course any writer must choose and select his material, but when selection and omisson forms a coherent pattern, then we ebgin to think that something more than inere compression for the purposes of publication is involved. Further more, when the sins of amision and contaisalon are aen to assume exactly the same fom as those of the edicts of those who had an interest in crenting n false "orthodoxy", then we can begin to do rather more than merely surmise at what is going on. A good example of this is Lenin and Trotsky's position on the First World War.
During the First Woold War there was not simply, as Stalinist mythology would have us belleve, a split between the chauvinists and those who sought a revolutionary end to the war. Actually among the revolationary Internationalists there were at least two main currents: one consisting primarily of Lenin and Zinovier and the other of Trotsky and, usually, Bukharin. These came into violent conflict at, for example Zimmerwald, becanse of Trotsky's totally basic view at that time was that ender the pressure of events the Mensheviks and others would be forced to act in a revolutionary way and therefore when it came to drafting the Zimmerwald Mandesto, as Deutscher method of this period, was to try to find a formula to which all could agree in the home that when it came to the crunch a revolutionary interpretation would be put on it. Trotsky himself admitled this later when be welle concerning te war that Lonen could never endure any half statements or unclearness He was right in dealing double and triple blows alien a politi cal thought seemed to him incomplete ur equbocal " Given this position of Lenin's, Ir was ofcourse incritable that he should clash fiercely and frequently with Trotsky, However as Trotsky aiso comments, there is a sharp rupture between ach polemical blows and the appraisal of the main specs ora pounc unc. as regards that pobocal line, what Trotsky polemicised against was the position Initially adopted by Lenin, although later quietly modified. which although superbly revolutionary, was theoretically incorrect.
nich Lenin, in the antial boosever manstesto in the war, raised the slogan of Russia's defest ming the lesser evil even hes supporters wei forced to point out that this position was ambiguous.
Trotsky aptly raised the question: "Lesser evil than hat?" Did it mean that the defeat of Russia was i lesser evil than the defeat of Germany? Lenin, ofcourse never meant that for one instance, hut his formalation was clearly ambiguous, repecially when coupled with Kaiserism. "Y Lenia to Shylapnikor, Oct. 17 1914) Trotsky agreed with the concept of the "lesser evil" only peovided it was understood provided that It was made clear that the only correct and scientific concept of it stated that the "lesser evil" was defeated rather than the cessation of revolutionary struggle. This position was spelt out in October 1914 and is what Deutschier relers to when he writes about Trotsky'g. references that the war should end without "Victors or vanquished", This was not a pacitist aspiration, but a rejoinder to Lenin's theoretically incorrect position. Trutsky never budged from theis position. As late as 1936 in emphasising the necessity for isolationary defeatism in Workd Wat 2, he that: "Revolutionary defeatism signifies only thal in its class struggle the proletarian party does not stop at "potriotic' considerations, since defeat of its own imperilist government, brought about, or hastened by the revolutionary movement of the masses is an incomparably lester evil than victory gaimed at the price of national unity, that is, the political prostration will conclude from this that all that has been shown i that Trotsky maintained his Incorrect view of what revolutionaey defeatism right up to his dentis This seems rather implansible considering that the Pourn international was be only Make organ sation which did not succumb to charinism during the Second World War, hut it is possible. Let u examine Lenin's views on the subject as we know that he hated all half-clear and anckar statements Lenin wrote: " From the beginning of the Imperialist war, (Trotsky) louk a clear cut internationalist position. " (cl. The Stalir School of Fala/casion, P.3).
Te is necessary to reiterate these fuets today, but in 1924, when Lukacs woote his book, it was all tion had started its campaigo of distortions a femalic Falsifications To beliere that Luka an expert on Lenin, a man with a personal knowledge of many of the leading personalities of the Comintern, who lived in a period when the events he was describing were fresh in the mind, and who had easy access to all the material on the subject, was not amare of these disputes is to strain our credulicy beyond belief. This becomes clearer when we examine the other aberrations contained in the book. We have space to discuss only one of theso Lukacs entitles Chapter 2 of his book, " The Proledariat as the Leading Class " Here he correctly empliasises that Ule basis of Lenin's struggle ageinst opportunism inside the Russian party was his widerstanding that the pruletariat and not the bourgeoiale would lead the coming Russian Rerolution. However it is somevliat curious, to put it mildly, no discussion in this Chapler of the fact that antil 1917 Lenin beliared that the Russian Revolution wouki be a bourgenis revolution. Thus Lehin had written that the revolarion "...will not weaken, bot will streogthen the domination of the hourgootale" or that because " the proletariat constitutes a minority " therefore "anyone who attempts to achieve socialism by any other route without pasting through the stage of political democracy will inevitahly arrive at the most absurd and reacdionan conclusions both economic and political", The reason why Lukaes cannot deal with this not unimportant position of Lenin s prior to Apre 1917, is ofcourse hecause to have done so would hare meant dealing with Trotsky who during the entire 12-year polemic Lenin wrong) regarding the role and objectives of the working class in the Russian Revolution. However by 1924 to have dealt with this dehate in a scientific way would have meant breaking with the growing over ordiodony , This Lukes as we discused T the tirst article, was todally unprepared to do. Again this argument ahout the role of the proletariat was In soning we can have escaped bukacs attention. Just as in the case of the attitude to war, Lukacs was trimming his ideas to fit "orthodosy", although at this time he was not gravelling before it in the way he was to do later.
What we in fact find in Lenin, and there are other examoles Lian those meationed. is a svstemnti: omission and distortion. If Cde Blackburn is very concerned win termogy, pemaps: systemate distortion" will offend few sensitivities and he ean have such a verbal victory if he likes, bat i think "straightforward lie" will fit the bill nicely, Lukacs" Senin remains a great work but a fundamentally flaw ed one.
Perbaps, however, most important in Cde Wlackburn's letter is the method he adopts in dealing with intellecruals like Lukack It is interesting to contrast it to that of Lenin (as outined for example in Codected Works, Voi. 43, p. 325, reganding defentism and the section of What is to he done on intetlecLenin adopted a completely different acritndo to ordiary workers who held false or even reactionary political ideas than he did to intellectuals, no matter low brillant, who share the sume ideas When the workers an pas or us sere tor detencism, this was becaose of'a confused fear of the Kaiser, the overpowering influence of the Russian Orthodox church, the cult of the Czar, ete. Their position of defencism was totally different to that of an intellecarguments, facts, ete on all sides and to corne to a well-worked-out conclusion. For the worker or peasant Lenin woul never nave urged any theng other than endless persuasion, illustration of events situation was folly difforent. Here the only anver was rigorous intellectual war. Lenin's greatest contribution to the tory of revolutionary organisation was his insistence on fierce polemic and strugge ARUEL LEI BAE STET DEUCE OUTE alone completely wrong positions. The reason for this was not accidental, hot was completely tled up with Lenin's conception of theory as something of vital and immediate practical importance, and not something tual dilettante.
When it comes to the question of Stalinism, the position is exactly the same as that of the attitudes during the Firat World War, For a worker, the secep to instinctive hatred of capitalism, realisation of the necessity for boughness in the striare noainst thic bourgeoise, simple confusion ot any one of a hundred other things. None of these things makes Stalinism ane tot ee enter Tevoniknar яs an 80есводу but it does means that the method we use for dealing with it is that of patient argument and persension For the intelloctual the situation is totally different. Just as Lenin could later, at ease, praise Pekhanor's 10 THINGS SULA NOW AM SESSIN BAUCCO CH did not hesitate for one moment in attacking him remorselessly for his social patriotism, so at ease we but that in no way alters our central political assess ment of Lukacs By 1924 Lukaes was and remained an enemy of the working clan It is as soch be must ti treated. The fact that he was also one of the most brilliant men ever to be associated with the communist movement must make us more harsh with him, not Dear Comrades, We are working on a long overdue project-compiling a selection of revoluLionary songs for publication. We are anxious to get material from any country depicting workers' struggle or motements for national liberation, together with background information or anecdotes to illustrate the political points.
If anyone wants to help us in this they should send material (words/score/ information/recordings, etc.) to the address below. We need to have a wide range of material to be able to make a good selection, and at the moment we ate very short of songs from France, Germany, Spain. Translations would also be useful.
Venceremos, Graham Jones, 19 Lovatt Street, Stafford.