Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Apotheosizing the Party: Lukács’s Chvostismus und Dialektik

  • Published:
Studies in East European Thought Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Georg Lukács’s recently discovered defense of Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein, written in 1925 or 1926 in reply to critical attacks by László Rudas and Abram Deborin, is of a piece with that earlier work and his Lenin of 1924. In its emphasis on the pivotal role and absolute authority of the Communist Party as the incarnation of the class consciousness of the proletariat, it is Leninist to the core. For many contemporary Marxist theorists, including the Lukács disciple István Mészáros, such an apotheosis is precisely what is dead in Lukács’s thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sziklai (2000: 35).

  2. Hajdu (2000: 18).

  3. See the transcript (in Hungarian translation) of the NKVD’s interrogation of Lukács, July 13, 1941 in Sziklai (2002: 71–75).

  4. Feitl (1985: 6), and Erzsébet Andics in Rudas (1950: 5–9).

  5. László Rudas in Krausz and Mesterházi, I (1981: 191).

  6. László Rudas in Krausz and Mesterházi, I (1981: 203).

  7. Deborin (1924: 627).

  8. Deborin (1924: 622).

  9. Lenin (1929 [1902]: 31, 44).

  10. V.I. Lenin in Lukács (1975: xvi–xvii).

  11. Lukács (1996: 14).

  12. Lukács, (1996: 8).

  13. László Rudas in Krausz and Mesterházi, II (1981: 26).

  14. Congdon (1991: 61).

  15. Lukács had already condemned such a belief in Lukács (1967 [1924]: 28).

  16. Lukács (1996: 25).

  17. See the dense, but not incomprehensible, section three, “Der Standpoint des Proletariats” in Lukács (1970/1923: 267–355), and Congdon (1991: 60–61).

  18. Lukács (1996: 44).

  19. See the chapter “Revolutionäre Realpolitik” in Lukács (1967/1924).

  20. See the essay “Methodisches zur Organisationsfrage” in Lukács (1970/1923).

  21. Lukács (1996: 34).

  22. Lukács (1996: 44).

  23. László Rudas in Krausz and Mesterházi, II (1981: 48).

  24. Lukács (1996: 51).

  25. Lukács (1970/1923: 63n).

  26. Lukács (1996: 49).

  27. Lukács (1996: 63).

  28. Lukács (1996: 53–54).

  29. Lukács (1996: 70).

  30. See Ambrus (1985).

  31. Mészáros (1995: 396).

  32. Mészáros (1972 [1970]: 79, 285).

  33. Mészáros learned this from Lukács; see the latter’s introduction to Lukács (1970 [1923]).

  34. Mészáros, (1972 [1970]: 285).

  35. Mészáros (1972 [1970]: 78).

  36. Mészáros (1972 [1970]: 287).

  37. Lukács (1970 [1923]: 168–169). Cited in Mészáros (1972 [1970]: 287). I have modified Mészáros’s translation slightly.

  38. Mészáros (1995: 371).

  39. Mészáros (1995: 399).

  40. Lukács (1996: 27).

  41. Camus (1956 [1951]: 234).

  42. On this matter, see Congdon (1991: 180–184).

  43. Kolakowski, III (1981: 274).

  44. Georg Lukács, “Mein Weg zu Marx” in Lukács (1970 [1933]: 11).

References

  • Ambrus, J. (Ed.). (1985). A Lukács-vita (1949–1951). Budapest: Múzsák Közművelődési Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camus, A. (1956 [1951]). The Rebel. New York: Vintage Books.

  • Congdon, L. (1991). Exile and social thought: Hungarian intellectuals in Germany and Austria, 1919–1933. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deborin, A. (1924). Lukács und seine Kritik des Marxismus. Arbeiter-Literatur, 1/2, 615–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitl, I. (1985). Rudas Lászlóról. Népszabadság, February 21, 6.

  • Hajdu, T. (2000). Lukács György a Lubjankán. Mozgó Világ, 8, 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolakowski, L. (1981). Main currents of Marxism, III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausz, T., & Mesterházi, M. (Eds.). (1981). A “Történelem és osztálytudat” a 20-as évek vitáiban, I–II. Budapest: Filozófia Oktatók Továbbképző és Információs Központja ELTE Bölcsészettudományi Kar és Lukács Archívum és Könyvtár.

  • Lenin, V. I. (1929 [1902]). What is to be done? New York: International Publishers.

  • Lukács, G. (1967 [1924]). Lenin: Studie über den Zusammenhang seiner Gedanken. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

  • Lukács, G. (1970 [1923]). Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

  • Lukács, G. (1970 [1933]). Marxismus und Stalinismus. Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.

  • Lukács, G. (1975). Tactics and ethics: Political essays, 1919–1929. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukács, G. (1996). Chvostismus und Dialektik. Budapest: Áron Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mészáros, I. (1972 [1970]). Marx’s theory of alienation. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

  • Mészáros, I. (1995). Beyond capital: Towards a theory of transition. London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudas, L. (1950). Elmélet és gyakorlat. Budapest: Szikra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sziklai, L. (2000). “41-ben mégis lebuktam”: Lukács György vallatása a Lubjankán. Kritika, 29/12, 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sziklai, L. (Ed.). (2002). Vallatás a Lubjankán: Lukács György vizsgálati ügyiratai—Életrajzi dokumentumok. Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó—Lukács Archívum.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Lee Congdon

Authors
  1. Lee Congdon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Congdon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Congdon, L. Apotheosizing the Party: Lukács’s Chvostismus und Dialektik . Stud East Eur Thought 59, 281–292 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9039-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-007-9039-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation