sign in sign up
<<
Home , Frankfurt School

UNIT 19 LUKACS, GRAMSCl AND THE SCHOOL

Structure 1 9.1 Introduction 19.2 Georg Lultacs (1 885-1971 ) 19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical 19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard 1'11esis 19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object 19.3 Antonio Grainsci (1 891-1937) 19.3.1 Notion of Hegemony 19.3.2 Role of Intellectuals 19.3.3 of 19.3.4 Relation between the Base and the Super-Structure and the Notion of Historic Bloc 19.4 Frankfurt Scllool (Or Critical ) 19.4.1 Opposition to all Forms of Domination 19.4.2 of O~thodoxMarxism 19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation 19.5 Summary 19.6 Exercises

G' 19.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous unit, we have discussed the main ideas of the tl~reeprominent advocates of : Marx, Lenin and Mao. As indicated earlier, all the three have contributed not only to tile Marxist ~herzqv,but have also made significant contribution to revolutionary practice. This is particularly true of Lenin and Mao. In this unit, we propose to discuss another three major streams which have enriched Marxist theory. These are associated with Lukacs (a Hungarian), Gramsci (an Italian) and the Frankfurt School (). It is important for you to remember that their contribution is more to theory than to revolutionarypractice. It is also useful to bear in mind that besides these three, there are several others like Trotsky, Plekhanov, Stajanovic, Altllusser, Kolakowski and Poulantazas etc. who have aIso contributed to the thcory of Marxism. Similarly, many others including Che Geuvara, Regis Debray, etc. have contributed a great deal both to the Marxist theory as well as to revolutionary practice. However, in this unit the discussion be limited only to Lukacs, Grarnsci and the Frankfurt School.

19.2 GEORG LUKACS (1 885-1971)

Georg Lukacs was born at Budapest (Hungary) in 1885 (April 13). After graduating from Budapest University, he studicd at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg. He had diverse interests, During the first phase of his liFe, even while he was studying he devoted considerable time to literary criticism. In this field, his early works are Soz~land Form (1910), History of Development of Modern Drama (19 1 I), Aesthetic (1 9 13) and the Theory of Novel (19 16). His initial inclination during this period was towards ethical . Plato and Hegel seem to have considerably infleunced him in this respect. Gradually, he was attracted by Marxian philosophy and within a couple of years he got intensely involved in the communist movement of his country. He joined the Communist Party of Hungary and became the Education Minister in 191 9 in the short-lived Communist Government. After the fall of the communist regime, he was tried by the new Hungarian Government and sentenced to death. He fled from Hungary and spent nearly 20 years in Austria, Germany and the Soviet Union. It was during his stay in Austria that he wrote his most seminal work - History and . This is the most important work of Lukacs and it has influenced a large number of Marxists. In fact, the Student Movement in France and in countries of Europe in the 1960s is said to have been inspired by this work. The Frankfurt School was also influenced by him. He returned to I-Iungary in 1945 to become a professor of at the Budapest University. Here, he got actively involved in political activities and consequently, became a target of serious criticism. In 1956, in the wake of de-Stalinization, he became the Minister of Culture in the Communist Government of In~rayNagi in Hungary for a few months. After the fall of this government, he was deported to Romania but he returned in 1957. Thereafter, till his death in 1971 (June 4) lie was engaged in writing philosophical and literaly works. 19.2.1 Rejection of

You would recall that Marx had predicted that when in would grow, it would be overthrown in a revolution by the . However, it was noticed during the twentieth century that this prediction of Marx did not come true and capitalism continued to grow despite its periodic crises. It was a problem for all post-Marx Marxists to explain as to why capitalis~nwas not coming to an end. In the previous lesson, we discussed that Lenin's explanation was that capitalism was still surviving because it had reached its highest stage of *, imperialism which was the last stage of capitalism. Lukacs, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School offered other answers to explain this phenomenon. Lukacs argued that for the overthrow of capitalism, the mere of the proletariat class was not enough as Marx had argued; this proletariat must also acquire revolutionary consciousness. He was critical of the view that Marxism was like physical sciences. He criticized Engel's argument that human behaviour was governed by dialectical laws. He also criticized $ngels for applying to the social world, because the interaction of subject and obje& in the social world is not the same as in the natural world. He went on to say that thought does not merely mirror or reflect the physical world sans mental activity. He rejected the Marxian theory of dialectical materialism. Likewise, Gramsci questioned the very Marxian view that the economic base determines the ideological political superstructure. He tried to explain how one class maintains its hold on the other. He argued that the.rule of one class over the other does not depend merely on the economic and physical power, it depends on the ability of the ruling class to impose its social, cultural and moral valzres on the ruled. Thus, while Lukacs emphasized the role of consciousness instead of material forces, Gramsci highlighted the role of cultural aspects instead of the economic base determining the super structure.

Lukacs carried out a philosophic of Marxism. He questioned several key aspects of Marxism, . He attacked historical ~naterialisniwhich is tlie very basis of Marxism. He argued that it was vulgar Marxism to say that a set of economic laws will determine whether the situation was ripe for revolution or not. He asserted that material conditions in thernsclves cannot change history. Socialist revolution is not a consequence of sharpening of just contradictions of capitalism. It is only when a class becomes conscious of these contradictions that revolutiollary change occurs, TI-tus, he emphasized the creative role of 11uman consciousness. In the previous unit, it was pointed out that according to Marx, it is the sharpening of contradictions between the forces or and that leads to changes in societyi Lukacs reversed this argument. He asserted that contradictions between means and relations of production (which is a objective fact) cannot itself bring about any change in society, unless there is a Iiuman subject (proletariat class) which grasps this . To put it in other words, Lulcacs did not accept the basic Marxian position that matter isprimary and mind secondary. Mere fact that there is exploitation and alienation of the proletariat class is not enough to bring about a revolution; rather it is only when the proletariat class becomes conscious of this alienation and exploitation that revolution would talce place. Thus, Lukacs tool< a semi-Hegelian or quasi Hegelian position. It allnost anzounted to saying that mind is primary and matter secondary. In fact, Lukacs seeins to agree with the Marxian thesis of Feuerbach that the essential element in historical evolution is not contradictidn, but prolctariatYsawareness about this contradiction which it acquires when engaged in resolving it. Further, the proletariat's consciousness about this contradiction is not direct, but only through its having experienced alienation. Lukacs, argument is that in the socia! world (unlike the natural world) there are no objective historical laws which are not subject to human control.

19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard Thesis

The above position of Lukacs also amourlts to a denial of Lenin's thesis about the role of the Comnzunist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat, because he maintains that such revolutionary consciousness will not come to the proletariat through some internzediary, but directly by experiencing alienation and exploitation. Consciousness in this way does not remain a super-structural category as in Marx. In Lenin's position as stated in What is to be Done (I 902), the proletariat can acquire revolutionary consciousness (awareness about the need to overtlirow capitalism) only by relying on outside elements (professional revolutionaries) who have a clear awareness of historical evolution which the proletariat cannot have on its own. The Colnmwnist Party, in Lenin's argument, represents a suitable mechanism for imparting such revolutionary conscious~~essto the proletariat; but for Lukacs the proletariat must acquire this consciousness about its class position without any outside help. To a question as to how the proletariat will acquire sucll revolutionary consciousness, Lukacs' response was that it would come through Workers' Councils and not by the party organisation as Lenin had maintained. 19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object

In classical materialism, consciousness is considered a mere reflection of and the only valid category is totality which can be grasped by the dialectical method alone. Lukacs calls it the "reflective" or copy theory 0.f which apprehends a false . This is a very cornplex argument of Lukacs. He is saying that to stop at the reality of a mere object is to grasp only at tlie appearance of things. According to him, the revolutionary praxis of the PI-oletariatenables it to have. a new and higher form of consciousness. When tlie proletariat begins to see Illat in capitalism, it Izas become a mere conimodity or a mere objecr, it ceases to be a mere co~n~nodityand a mere object. It beco~nesa subject (agent of cl~ange).Thus, comprehension of this reality enables it to change this reality. Lukacs further argued that object and subject ( and consciousness) are not related to each other as .base and ,sz4pept structvre, but co-exist in a single . In other words, while Marx had argued that it is the nlaterial conditions of society which change history, according to Lukacs consciousness is not a si~nplereflection of the process of history, but it truly is an agent by which history may be transformed. While consciolisness is aprodzrct of material conditions, it is also tlie driving .force by which material conditions may be changed. While the orthodox Marxian position states that the proletariat's conditions of existence determines their conscioz~ssne.s.s,Lukacs tiiaintains that the proletariat's consciousness would change their conditions of existence. Thus, conscio~~snessis the most decisive factor in the self-liberation of the proletariat. It is through tlie acquisition of revolutionary consciousness that the proletariat transforrns itself fro111 a 'C~LI.T.Sin it.reCf to a 'class for itself', from an object of history to a. subji;ct of fiistory.

Gra~nsciwas born in a poor f;t~nilyin Snrdina which was the poorest region of Italy. His father was arrested for embezzlement when Granisci was a small child and sentenced to five years imprisonment. In his absence, the family lived in utter poverty because of which Gratnsci suffered physical deformity and became a hunchback. After some elementary education, Gramsci started working in an office. In 191 1 he won a scholarship and joined Turin University. At Turin, he noticed that there was a lot of in the standard of living in the rural areas of Italy and its cities. While at the university, he got associated with the Italian Socialist Party. By and by he was attracted to Marxist ideas. He was also influenced by Corce's emphasis on the role of cu1tur.e and thozrght in the development of history. It was this idea of Cqrce which provided the historical framework within which Grarnsci carried out his adapiation of Marxian ideas. In 191 4-1 5 he attended a series of lectures on Marx which made him particularly interested in the problem of relation between the base and the super-structzae. He began to engage himself in the workers' movement. When the Italian Communist Party was founded in 1921, Gramsci became one of its foundi~igmember. Soon, he became its General Secretary and was also elected to the Italian Parliament. He was arrested in 1926 in the wake of the rise of and remained imprisoned till his death. During his prison life he wrote on several topics. These writings were published later as l)ri,ron Notebooks. It is these Notebooks of Gramsci which made him a great theoretician of Hegelian Marxisrn (alongwith Lukacs). His other ma-jol-work is Modern Prince and other writings.

19.3.1 Notion sf Hegemony

Gratnsci's Pri.ro)z Nolebooks and Modern Prince and Other Writings deal with diverse issues of politics, history, culture and philosophy, but in this i~nitwe will refer to only some ofthem: his notion of hegemony, his views about the role of intellectuuls, hisphilosophy qfPr.axis and his analysis of relations between the base and the szper-structure. Out of ail these, his notion of hegennony is considered to be the most significant and original contribution of Granisci. In tlie previous unit, it was pointed out that in all societies there are two classcs: the class which owns the means of productio~iancl the class which owqs only . The class which owns the means of production establishes its rule ovcr (he class which owns labour power and exploits it. Thus, in the Marxian scheme, the capitalist statc is the managing cornmittce ofthe boul-gcoisie, wliich facilitates and legitimizes the exploitative processes in the society. It is the econolnic power (or the ownership of means of productioi~)that enables the ruling class to remain in power. Gralnsci contested this Marxian position. He argued that the ruling class maintains its domination in diverse ways includi~igtlic use oj'jiorce, use of its economicpower and the conqent of the ruled. in other words, the bourgeois class maintains its domination not merely by force, b~~tin several nun-coercive ways. Two si~chnon -coercive ways prominently come out in his writings. One of them is the ability of the ruling class to irnposr-: its own values and systerns on the masses. Gramsci argued that the ruli~igclass uses various processes of socializatioi~to impose its own c~llti~reon the r~~led.The ruling class atternpts lo C~IIII'OI the minds of men by imposing its own cultuse on thein in several subtle ways. So, cuilz~~.rri/?egemo~)~ of the r1.1iingclass is the basis of its r~~lingpower. Secondly, he argues that the ruling class does not always zvosk for its narrow class interest. in order to maintain its ruling position, it enters into con~pru~i~isesand alliances with other groups in societies atld creates a historic bloc. It is this strategy of creating a social bloc which enables the ruling class to get the consent of the ruled. You will notice that this argument of Gramsci is completely at variance with t1.1~orthodox Marxian position in wliiclz the class rule of the bo~~rgeoisis justified on the basis bf its control of means of,production. In oetler words, in the Grarnscian argument the role of iileax and czrllure become central instead of tlie economic factor. Secondly, Cra~nsci's explanation of dominance oTthe ruling class in terms of its co~~lpromisesarid alliances with other allies ~lnderplaysthe orthodox Marxian position in which the state is viewed nzerely as the nza~aagingcommittee of the . So ~nrlchso that Grarnsci also suggested a system of alliances for the to enable it to overtllrow the bo~~rgeoisrule. tie emphasized the need for creating ii llistoric bloc.

19.3.2 Role sf Intellectuals

I-lerc n question arises as to how does the ruling class establisl~its hegemony in society? Gramsci argued that it does so with the help of intellectuals. But he added that intellectuals coi~ldalso play a significant tole in thcl: tcvolutionary trstnsforrnation of society. He argiled thrtt intellectuals provide a philosophy tbr the masscs so tkat rtley i-io not questiot~the rrrling ,I I position of the bourgeoisie. In this respect, Grarnsci cnlked uf two categories ofiritellectuals: 11-cru'itioncrlinrellcctuals: nnld orglrnic intcllcctuals. l'he former largely refers to those who thinlc thclt they are not linked to any class. In this se~Tsc,they are independent. Organic intellect~~nls,OII tl~eotl.rcr ha~id,are those who are actively and clusely associated either with the rilliizg class or with the masses. 'Those who are associated with the rulil~gclass chum out ideas, wlziclz helps in legitimizing the rule ofone class ovel. the otlter. 'I'hose who are associatecl

I with the I.nasses work for ;lnd provide leadership to bring about revolutionary change it? society. Such i~ltellectualsemerge from within the working class. 19.3.3 Philosophy of Praxis

Gramsci wrote in his Prison Notebooks that his l~hilosophyofpraxisis n rel'otnz and a developed forin of . For Ilirn, philosophy of praxis is interactivrl of theory and practice. In Marx's writings, praxis refers to creative and self-creative activity rllro~rghwhich human j create and change their historical universe and themselves. It is activity specific to human beings and it differentiates them ii-on1 other beings. It is a inix or rather intcraction of

I theory and pmctice in such a. way that theory enriches practice and practice enriches theory. Marx had discussed the notion of praxis in lzis [I'hescsonFeuc~.hucl?. Gramsci treatcd Marxism as the philosophy of praxis. He was himself involved in practical revolutionary activity. Glarnsci maintains that rnan can affect his own development and that of his own surroundings only in so Far as he has a clear view of what possibilities of actions are open to him. To do this, he has to ~~nderslandthe historical situation in which he ,finds hi~nsqlfand once he does .that, he can I play an active part in modifyi~zgthat situation. The lnan of action is tlie true philosopl~erand the philosopher must of necessity be a man of action. Gramsci holds the view that man does not enter into relations with the natural world, just by being himself a part of it, but actively by means of work and technique. It is only through historical awareness and understanding of historical circumstances in which man finds himself that he can.remake his surroundings and remake himself.

19.3.4 Relations between the Base and the Super-Structure and the Notion of Historic Bloc

It was in 1914 - 1 5 when Gramsci attended some lectures on Marxism that he got interested in the problenl of relations between the base and the super-structure. You would recall that Marx had expressed the view that no society can undergo any transfor~nationtill necessary and sufficient conditions for such transformation are already there. One form of society cannot be replaced by another, unless it has developed all forms of life which are inherent and implicit in its economic relationship. In the Critiqzre ofPolitica1 Economy, Marx had stated that "no social order ever perishes before all the for which there is room in it have developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the womb of old society". For Marx, the economic order of society constituted the base and the political order constituted the super structure, The of super structure depended on the nature of the economic base. Gramsci modified this Marxian position. He talked of a historic bloc. The historic bloc for Gramsci was a situation when both objective and subjective forces combine to produce a revolutionary situation. It is a situation when the old order is collapsit~gand there are also people with will and historical insight to take advantage of this situation. The union of base and super-structure, material conditions and , constitute the historic bloc. In other words, even when the material forces have reached a point where revolution is possible, its occurrence would depend on correct intellectual analysis in order to have a rational reflection of the contradictions of the

structure. e.

For Gramsci, dialectics means three things:

i) interaction between the intellectuals (party leaders) and the masses;

ii) explanation ofhistorical developments in terms ofthesis, anti-thesis and synthesis; iii) the relation between the sub-structure and super-structure.

In vulgar Marxism, the super-structure i.e., , laws, philosophy, art and the whole realm of ideas is directly conditioned by the economic system, by means of production and exchange. Material conditions determine man's consciousness' Gramsci criticized this view. Like Lukacs, he argued that revolution and preparations for it would i~lvolveprofound changes in the consciousness of masses. Dialectics in the physical world are different from dialectics in society. In physical nature, it is the backlash of physical forces but in society, it is a moment in which men contribute to a deliberate force in the dialectical process. Thus, it is the moment when sub-structure and szryer-sfrztctzlue interact on each other lo produce a historic bloc.

You must have noticed that there is a lot in co~nlnonbetween Lukacs and Gramsci. Both emphasized the role of cultural and philosophical factors in understanding of Marx. Both brought out the element of Hegelian idealism in Marx. Both attached greater importance to consciousness than to material forces. Both saw the rclationship between the base and the super str~icturein a new light.

19.4 FRANKFURT SCHOOL. (OR )

Frankfurt School refers to a group of philosophers who were together at the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research during'the 1920s and 30s. Prominent members of the school were Horkheimer, Adorno, Pollock, Eric Fromm, lVeuinann and Herbert'Marcuse. All of them, one way or the other, contributed LO the Marxist theory. Of course, there were differences among them on many issues, but there is some common streak which emerges from their writings. Their view also came to be called Critical Theory. 'They were all critical of all forms of domination and exploitation in society. They were also critical of they Stalinist variety of . They argued that Marxism was not a closed system. They are more concerned with cultural and ideological issues than with which is the core of ortliodox Marxism.

19.4.1 Opposition to all Forms of Domination

At the very outset, you must understand the context in which they wrote and the issues which bothered them. They wrote in a period which was marked by the rise ofNazism (in Germany) and Fascism (in Italy). Moreover, the rise ol'Stalinisn~in the Soviet Union with its totalitarian thrust was a cause of serious concern for them. They were also aware of the failure ofcommunist movements in western Europe. They were critical of all ideologies because ideologies do not offer a true account of reality. They were particularly critical ofthose ideologies which attempt to conceal arid legitimize systems of exploitation and domination. Through critical analysis of such ideologies, they wanted to the hidden roots of domi~~ationin them. By doing so, they tried to create true consciousness among the inasses and prepare them for revolutionary action. TIILIS,their goal like Marx is revolutionary transformation of society, but in a different. way.

They were critical of cultilral and social and practices which aim at offering a false escape from monotonous every day life under capitalism, or'whict~advocates the idea that inequalities are not man-made, but natural or have corne from God.

19.4.2 Critique of

The Frankfurt School tried to offer a critique of some of the notions of orthodox Marxism whicl~had acquired repressive and authoritarian intent in the Soviet Union. Some of them even went to the extent of saying that Marxism is not adequate to explain trends like btrreaucratization. Like Lukacs and Gramsci, they also questioned the Marxian doctrine of llistorical ~naterialismwhich tries to explain all stages in historical developments in economic terms. They argued that it i~nderplaysthe role or human subjectivity. In fact, they tried to show that this 'detern~inist'thrust (economic base determining everything) was the result of Marx's acceptance ofpositivist niethodology of naturul sciences. Moreover, the contradiction between forces and relations ofproduction may not have similar results in all societies. It will depend on how people view these contradictions and how they try to resolve them. History is made by the situated conduct of partially knowing subjects. Therefore, for understanding any historical situation, it is essential to comprehencl the interplay between socio-economic structure and social practices. 19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation

The central concern in the writings of the Franltfurt school is domination and azlthority. They argued that in liberal as well as socialist societies, domination and authority are justified in the name of which they call inslru~~cnf~llrationulity. In fact, it is the result of the application of the positivist methods of natural sciences to social sciences. In natural sciences, we st~ldythe pllysical phenomenon with a view to control and regulate it, but in human sciences the object of study of society should not be to control and regulate human beings, but to emancipate them from all sorts of bondages. All socio-cultural practices in western as well as eastern societies are aimed at stablizing the system of domination. In this sense, you can treat the Franlcful-t School as the advocate of a counter-culture. They are also critical of autlioritarian family structures and the socialization processes in education. They stand for sexual liberation as well. They are critical of the processes by which public opinion is manipulated by political pal-ties and through ~nasltetresearch and advertising agencies.

19.5 SUMMARY

In the foregoing pages, we have discussed three major streatns in Marxism which have been witnessed during the twentieth century; those associated with Lukacs. Gramsci and the Franltfurt School. While they do differ with each other in matters of detail, there are some common elements in all the three of them. For example, they underplay the Marxian doctrine of historical ~uaterialismwhere the economic base detern.lines the super-structure. Instead, they emphasize the role of human consciousness and will (Lukacs) and c~rlturalaspects (Gramsci and Frankfitst School). All the three attempt to explain why bourgeois r~ileand capitalism have not been overthrown as Marx had predicted. Why is it that despite the existence of a large proletariat class in several societies, revolutionary change has not occurred? In their search for answers to these questions, they found that the mere existence of the proletariat class is not enough for a revolution to occur; this proletariat class must acquire the necessary revolutionary consciousness. They also found that ruling classes are able to maintain tlieir hegemony and domination by various subtle methods like imposing their cultural nouns, their beliefs and values on the masses. It is the responsibility of intellectuals to guide the masses in this respect. They also explained how and by what methods the authority structures of domination are legitimized in order to ensure stability ofthe system. * 19.6 EXERCISES

1) What is the main contri b~~tionof Lultacs to the Masxist theory?

2) What did Gralnsci mean by hegemony'? In what way did lie modify the orthodox Marxian position?

3) What is meant by the Frankfurt School? What critique of liberal and socialist societies did it offer?