What do you think?
Rate this book
A Defence of History and Class Consciousness: Tailism and the Dialectic
In the mid 1920s Lukács wrote a sustained and passionate response to Stalin’s onslaught on his earlier seminal work History and Class Consciousness . Unpublished at the time, Lukács himself thought that the text had been destroyed. However, a group of researchers recently found the manuscript gathering dust in the newly opened archives of the CPSU in Moscow. Now for the first time, this fascinating, polemical and intense text is available in English. It is a crucial part of a hidden intellectual history and will transform interpretations of Lukács’s oeuvre.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
2 people are currently reading
363 people want to read
About the author
György Lukács
452 books387 followersGyörgy Lukács was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, aesthetician, literary historian and critic. He is a founder of the tradition of Western Marxism, an interpretive tradition that departed from the Marxist ideological orthodoxy of the Soviet Union. He developed the theory of reification, and contributed to Marxist theory with developments of Karl Marx's theory of class consciousness. He was also a philosopher of Leninism. He ideologically developed and organised Lenin's pragmatic revolutionary practices into the formal philosophy of vanguard-party revolution.
His literary criticism was influential in thinking about realism and about the novel as a literary genre. He served briefly as Hungary's Minister of Culture as part of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic.
His literary criticism was influential in thinking about realism and about the novel as a literary genre. He served briefly as Hungary's Minister of Culture as part of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 19, 2019
Reading Lukács is always pleasurable. Look at him, on the cover of this book, peaking out over the rim, saying hello, like an affable puppet from Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Well, I daresay, reading him is even more enjoyable than wearing one of Mr. Rogers warm sweaters. Unlike Mr. Rogers though, who changes his sweater every 5 minutes, depending on what he plans to do, Lukács informs us to always wear the cloak –in rain, shine, or even gun fire - of historical materialism!
This book is a defense of his masterpiece History and Class Consciousness, which Zizek, in an afterword, claims is comparable to no other book of the 20th century; the quintessential Hegelian-Marxist work. I haven’t read as much as Zizek, but my experience is about the same. Lukács is a philosophical genius, and a militant, who makes for fiery writing, reminiscent of Trotsky to the working class, but in this case, the audience is fellow philosophers.
The opening introduction by John Rees is top-notch. It’s the ideal short bio on Lukács, who he was, the philosophical struggles he dealt with, and the political machinations he participated in.
The first half of the defense by Lukács is just okay. Lukács is brilliant, but the peoples he’s arguing against (Mensheviks) without a doubt misunderstood his philosophy. And one begins to mildly tremble when he states that Bolshevism is the necessary logical conclusion of Marx’s Marxism. Fortunately, if one reads the 1960s preface to History and Class Consciousness (HCC), we find Lukács admitting that he had to entirely change his philosophical approach upon the publication of Marx’s earlier writings. Which, in my opinion, show that Leninism is not the necessary conclusion of Marx’s Marxism.
The second half of the essay is where the real ingenuity emerges. Lukács begins to develop a Marxian theory of nature, against the Engelian perspective. Moreover, he discusses Kant, science, and industry in great detail. This essay comprises parts of HCC, and is later augmented in his manuscripts for The Ontology of Social Being. Lukács point is to constantly reaffirm that social being conditions consciousness, to the degree that Kant’s thing-in-itselfs is resolved in knowledge of praxis, as the thing becomes a for-us. At least I think that’s what he’s saying. I admit this section got abstract really fast.
Finally, there is Zizek’s afterword. It’s trash. I’d mark down a star or two for how crappy this essay is, but this would inadvertently be a punishment to the work of Lukács, and potential future readers of Lukács, so I’ll refrain from doing so.
This book is a defense of his masterpiece History and Class Consciousness, which Zizek, in an afterword, claims is comparable to no other book of the 20th century; the quintessential Hegelian-Marxist work. I haven’t read as much as Zizek, but my experience is about the same. Lukács is a philosophical genius, and a militant, who makes for fiery writing, reminiscent of Trotsky to the working class, but in this case, the audience is fellow philosophers.
The opening introduction by John Rees is top-notch. It’s the ideal short bio on Lukács, who he was, the philosophical struggles he dealt with, and the political machinations he participated in.
The first half of the defense by Lukács is just okay. Lukács is brilliant, but the peoples he’s arguing against (Mensheviks) without a doubt misunderstood his philosophy. And one begins to mildly tremble when he states that Bolshevism is the necessary logical conclusion of Marx’s Marxism. Fortunately, if one reads the 1960s preface to History and Class Consciousness (HCC), we find Lukács admitting that he had to entirely change his philosophical approach upon the publication of Marx’s earlier writings. Which, in my opinion, show that Leninism is not the necessary conclusion of Marx’s Marxism.
The second half of the essay is where the real ingenuity emerges. Lukács begins to develop a Marxian theory of nature, against the Engelian perspective. Moreover, he discusses Kant, science, and industry in great detail. This essay comprises parts of HCC, and is later augmented in his manuscripts for The Ontology of Social Being. Lukács point is to constantly reaffirm that social being conditions consciousness, to the degree that Kant’s thing-in-itselfs is resolved in knowledge of praxis, as the thing becomes a for-us. At least I think that’s what he’s saying. I admit this section got abstract really fast.
Finally, there is Zizek’s afterword. It’s trash. I’d mark down a star or two for how crappy this essay is, but this would inadvertently be a punishment to the work of Lukács, and potential future readers of Lukács, so I’ll refrain from doing so.
July 31, 2022
It might seem perverse to devote a book to reviving the somewhat marginal Leninist category of tailism. Lukacs' defense of HCC, in my view, succeeds in showing why we can't simply ignore the phenomenon of tailing.
First of all, for the non-Leninists, here is a quick reminder of what Lenin meant when he coined the term in What is to be Done:
"what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process”, but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail). And it must be admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of development”."
The key phrase is "tactics-as-process." Those content to track the movement aren't exactly opportunists, since in principle one can maintain fidelity to revolution while deliberately avoiding the question of strategy. The tailists, exemplified by Deborin and Rudas, fail to see that philosophical questions require philosophical treatment. To put it simply: the dialectic cannot be liquidated by industry.
The main philosophical lesson of the book concerns the logic of essence. We need (materialist) dialectical thought if we want to navigate the capitalist husks enveloping the productive forces. Only the dialectician "knows that the capitalist husks [are] just as much a part of objective reality (just as with Hegel the appearance is a moment of essence)." Crucially, this knowledge of the social determination of husks is *conceptual.*
Why is this relevant today? In the wake of the fall of the USSR, many on the Left treat any strategic rationality as inherently oppressive, advising that our attention is better focused on microscopic interventions. Lukacs thinks we can do better, encouraging us to develop an analysis of paradoxical situations to determine when the subjective leap of an intervention is justified. It's difficult to disagree.
First of all, for the non-Leninists, here is a quick reminder of what Lenin meant when he coined the term in What is to be Done:
"what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process”, but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail). And it must be admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of development”."
The key phrase is "tactics-as-process." Those content to track the movement aren't exactly opportunists, since in principle one can maintain fidelity to revolution while deliberately avoiding the question of strategy. The tailists, exemplified by Deborin and Rudas, fail to see that philosophical questions require philosophical treatment. To put it simply: the dialectic cannot be liquidated by industry.
The main philosophical lesson of the book concerns the logic of essence. We need (materialist) dialectical thought if we want to navigate the capitalist husks enveloping the productive forces. Only the dialectician "knows that the capitalist husks [are] just as much a part of objective reality (just as with Hegel the appearance is a moment of essence)." Crucially, this knowledge of the social determination of husks is *conceptual.*
Why is this relevant today? In the wake of the fall of the USSR, many on the Left treat any strategic rationality as inherently oppressive, advising that our attention is better focused on microscopic interventions. Lukacs thinks we can do better, encouraging us to develop an analysis of paradoxical situations to determine when the subjective leap of an intervention is justified. It's difficult to disagree.
January 6, 2008
5 stars for zizek's postface
June 5, 2022
A very interesting work in which Lukacs defends himself from the criticism presented to him from Rudas and Deborin. The introduction by John Rees is useless, containing out of place attacks on "Stalinism," and the postface by Zizek seemingly confirmed the rejection of Engels' "dialectic of nature" that Lukacs himself says he was not attacking in this work is absurd and laughable (as it is with most of Zizek, or any "anti-Engelsian" Hegelian pseudo-Marxists).
Lukacs clarifies many things here, although I am not sure if they actually line up with the original work. For example, Lukacs talks at length at how he was not truly rejecting Engels' contributions to dialectical materialism or the dialectics of nature, but instead Engels' belief that Kantian philosophical thought could be defeated with material experiment rather than philosophical rejection. I agree with Lukacs here, but if this was his true intention, he spelled it out very poorly in his original works and does not address it at all in his self-critical introduction from the 60s.
Perhaps even more ironically, for all Rees' whining about "Stalinism," almost all of Lukacs' criticism of Deborin lines up with what the "Stalinist" philosophers like Yudin and Mitin would say in the 30s, echoed by Mao and others in several places, of Deborin being an "idealist" and "Hegelian Menshevik," etc.
Either way, I intend to return to this work at some point, after rereading both Lukacs' work on Lenin and History and Class Consciousness.
Lukacs clarifies many things here, although I am not sure if they actually line up with the original work. For example, Lukacs talks at length at how he was not truly rejecting Engels' contributions to dialectical materialism or the dialectics of nature, but instead Engels' belief that Kantian philosophical thought could be defeated with material experiment rather than philosophical rejection. I agree with Lukacs here, but if this was his true intention, he spelled it out very poorly in his original works and does not address it at all in his self-critical introduction from the 60s.
Perhaps even more ironically, for all Rees' whining about "Stalinism," almost all of Lukacs' criticism of Deborin lines up with what the "Stalinist" philosophers like Yudin and Mitin would say in the 30s, echoed by Mao and others in several places, of Deborin being an "idealist" and "Hegelian Menshevik," etc.
Either way, I intend to return to this work at some point, after rereading both Lukacs' work on Lenin and History and Class Consciousness.
June 25, 2020
This short book sheds light on Georg Lukacs views in the 1920s. This is controversial because his most well known work written a little earlier - "History and Class Consciousness" - was both very influential on the subsequent "Western Marxism" strand of left wing thinking including the Frankfurt School and critical theory, and also comprehensively disowned by Lukacs himself from the 1930s onwards.
Despite that subsequent disavowal this book presents Lukacs defending the earlier work, and thereby also defending the Hegelian version of Marxism History and Class Consciousness presented. It's written as a polemic against two of Lukacs' critics, Rudas and Deborin. To get the best from it probably needs a prior reading of History and Class Consciousness itself, and a basic grounding in dialectics and the Hegelian Marxist approach to the relationship between subject and object in history.
That accepted, this is a great little book and a refutation of the mechanical 'vulgar marxist" view of causality and change.
On top of this, there is a wonderful short postface by Slavoj Zizek. Although Zizek can be a bit hit and miss, this short essay is particularly interesting at connecting the dots of Lukacs thought together and drawing out its significance for what knowledge is and for revolutionary practice.
Despite that subsequent disavowal this book presents Lukacs defending the earlier work, and thereby also defending the Hegelian version of Marxism History and Class Consciousness presented. It's written as a polemic against two of Lukacs' critics, Rudas and Deborin. To get the best from it probably needs a prior reading of History and Class Consciousness itself, and a basic grounding in dialectics and the Hegelian Marxist approach to the relationship between subject and object in history.
That accepted, this is a great little book and a refutation of the mechanical 'vulgar marxist" view of causality and change.
On top of this, there is a wonderful short postface by Slavoj Zizek. Although Zizek can be a bit hit and miss, this short essay is particularly interesting at connecting the dots of Lukacs thought together and drawing out its significance for what knowledge is and for revolutionary practice.
January 12, 2024
Very clarificatory "lost" work of Lukács that was abandoned/junked by it's author. Brings out the political/historical stakes of History and Class Consciousness as a defence of the Marxism of the Second International radicals (chiefly Rosa Luxemburg) and the Bolsheviks. The "whole book" is concerned with "the role of the party in the revolution" (p.48). This could be easier to miss if one focuses only on the most famous essay of HCC "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" especially if the section on the "Antinomies of Bourgeois Thought" is taken in isolation (hence the tendency today to treat HCC as "Marxist philosophy"). Here Lukács makes the surprising claim that it really "Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation" (the other essay composed especially for HCC) that is the most important in that work (p. 94). Lukács attempt to recover the "subjective" side of Marxism, the centrality of consciousness, is not just a philosophical/philological project but an account of the significance of the Russian Revolution and defence against charges of "Blanquism"/voluntarism/adventurism.
Also interesting and suggestive comments on:
- The theory of the "moment"; relation of moment to process; Lenin's "insurrection as art"
- History of bourgeois philosophy esp. a defence of Kant against vulgar subjectivist "Kantianism"
- The expansion of our concrete knowledge of nature through science and industry under capitalism and the possibility of scientists etc. attaining dialectical knowledge of the social and historical mediation of our relationship to nature through experiment and industry. (Possible but not through experiment alone - only if the scientist is also a historical materialist which is only "coincidentally" related to their social position).
Ultimately unfinished so useful for the light it shines in HCC and the suggestions it makes. But very worth reading in conjunction with that work and Lukács Lenin book (along with others of his earlier essays e.g. his Review of Bukharin's The Theory of Historical Materialism).
Also interesting and suggestive comments on:
- The theory of the "moment"; relation of moment to process; Lenin's "insurrection as art"
- History of bourgeois philosophy esp. a defence of Kant against vulgar subjectivist "Kantianism"
- The expansion of our concrete knowledge of nature through science and industry under capitalism and the possibility of scientists etc. attaining dialectical knowledge of the social and historical mediation of our relationship to nature through experiment and industry. (Possible but not through experiment alone - only if the scientist is also a historical materialist which is only "coincidentally" related to their social position).
Ultimately unfinished so useful for the light it shines in HCC and the suggestions it makes. But very worth reading in conjunction with that work and Lukács Lenin book (along with others of his earlier essays e.g. his Review of Bukharin's The Theory of Historical Materialism).
July 25, 2024
An unfinished yet rousing philosophical critique of Menshevism with further clarification of young Lukacs’ oft misconstrued positions re the dialectics of nature.
One note: The title should really be something like “Tailism and the Dialectic: A Response to L. Rudas and A. Deborin”, as “A Defence of History and Class Consciousness” misses the mark, considering Lukacs himself did not describe this “lost” work in such a way. On page 1 of the actual manuscript he states: “It is certainly not my intention to defend the book itself.” As he sees it and directly states, Lukacs is defending *Marxism and Leninism* from the Menshevik-Kautskyist attacks of Deborin and Rudas.
That being said, as J. Rees states in the introduction there is a certain unity between this and H&CC (and his study of Lenin). Evidently if one wants to engage with this it would be necessary to familiarize themselves with those two books first (along with a good grasp of dialectics).
One note: The title should really be something like “Tailism and the Dialectic: A Response to L. Rudas and A. Deborin”, as “A Defence of History and Class Consciousness” misses the mark, considering Lukacs himself did not describe this “lost” work in such a way. On page 1 of the actual manuscript he states: “It is certainly not my intention to defend the book itself.” As he sees it and directly states, Lukacs is defending *Marxism and Leninism* from the Menshevik-Kautskyist attacks of Deborin and Rudas.
That being said, as J. Rees states in the introduction there is a certain unity between this and H&CC (and his study of Lenin). Evidently if one wants to engage with this it would be necessary to familiarize themselves with those two books first (along with a good grasp of dialectics).
May 6, 2024
Lukács verteidigt sein frühes Meisterwerk Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein vor allem gegen die Kritik durch Deborin und Rudas. Einige Punkte aus GuK werden dadurch noch mal klarer. Von besonderer Bedeutung ist seine Stellungnahme zur Naturdialektik - hier ist er ganz klar im Recht und liefert tatsächlich eine bessere Erklärung als Alfred Schmidt das mit seiner Kantianisierenden Darstellung später getan hat.
Das Vorwort ist naiv und typisch trotzkistisch. Beim Nachwort versucht Zizek unbedarfte Leser mit ein paar Hegelianischen Taschenspielertricks zu beeindrucken, dabei macht er wenigstens die kritische Theoreie runter (merkt dabei freilich nicht, dass ihn diese Kritik selbst trifft).
Das Vorwort ist naiv und typisch trotzkistisch. Beim Nachwort versucht Zizek unbedarfte Leser mit ein paar Hegelianischen Taschenspielertricks zu beeindrucken, dabei macht er wenigstens die kritische Theoreie runter (merkt dabei freilich nicht, dass ihn diese Kritik selbst trifft).
July 1, 2024
Lukács engages in polemic with two Comintern hacks who didn't understand how History and Class Consciousness had squared Hegelian dialectics with Leninism. interesting to see how the persisting influence of the second international's economism and determinism. introduction's very very strong, afterword from Zizek, which is what it is
Read
December 5, 2023*fiquei de ler o post face do zizek*
June 29, 2023
O livro é bem complicado. Lukács nele se afunda ainda mais nas partes problemáticas de História e Consciência de Classe, e contra oponentes ainda menos valorosos. Única coisa que salva o livro de ter 3 estrelas é o excelente posfácio de Nicolas Tertulian, que simplesmente vale o preço do livro inteiro pelo artigo. Tertulian faz um balanço sóbrio dos pontos fracos e inovações do livro. Pelo contrário, o prefácio de Michael Löwy é detestável, se apoia nos pontos mais equivocados do livro (que mesmo Lukács vai rever mais tarde em sua vida) para defender típicas posições de acadêmicos meia boca (inclusive critica Lukács por ceder ao "sentimento" de que as revoluções na Europa tivessem sido derrotadas após 1923 - seria interessante, para apoiar essa posição, demonstrar a existência de um movimento revolucionário que se colocasse à tomada do poder como esse de 1917-23 na Europa após esse período para sugerir a loucura subjetiva de Lukács e outros). Enfim, leiam o artigo de Tertulian se já leram história e consciência de classe, ele está correto quando diz que o texto tem mais caráter documental que qualquer outra coisa.
The book is riddled with problems. Lukács goes deeper into the swamp he got himself into in History and Class Consciousness, against even less worthy opponents. The only thing that saves the book from getting 3 stars is the most excellent afterword by Nicolas Tertulian, which alone is worth the price of the book. Tertulian makes a sober assessment of the weak points and innovations of the book. By contrast, the preface by Michael Löwy is detestable. Löwy leans on some of the most problematic positions of the book (positions that even Lukács would renounce latter in his life) so as to defend typical positions of shoddy academicians (even going as far as accusing Lukács of surrendering to the "sentiment" that the revolutions in Europe had been defeated in the period after 1923. It would be interesting, so as to gain some grounding to this position, to show the existence of a revolutionary movement which moved towards the seizure of power in Europe in the scale and after the period of 1917-23. That would show, as Löwy suggests, the subjective madness of Lukács and others in facing this historical period). Anyway, do read the article by Tertulian (besides the Brazilian edition as this afterword, there is a french edition - Avatars de la philosophie marxiste : à propos d'un texte inédit de Georg Lukács) if you have already read History and Class Consciousness, he is correct in saying that this book has more documentary character than any other thing.
The book is riddled with problems. Lukács goes deeper into the swamp he got himself into in History and Class Consciousness, against even less worthy opponents. The only thing that saves the book from getting 3 stars is the most excellent afterword by Nicolas Tertulian, which alone is worth the price of the book. Tertulian makes a sober assessment of the weak points and innovations of the book. By contrast, the preface by Michael Löwy is detestable. Löwy leans on some of the most problematic positions of the book (positions that even Lukács would renounce latter in his life) so as to defend typical positions of shoddy academicians (even going as far as accusing Lukács of surrendering to the "sentiment" that the revolutions in Europe had been defeated in the period after 1923. It would be interesting, so as to gain some grounding to this position, to show the existence of a revolutionary movement which moved towards the seizure of power in Europe in the scale and after the period of 1917-23. That would show, as Löwy suggests, the subjective madness of Lukács and others in facing this historical period). Anyway, do read the article by Tertulian (besides the Brazilian edition as this afterword, there is a french edition - Avatars de la philosophie marxiste : à propos d'un texte inédit de Georg Lukács) if you have already read History and Class Consciousness, he is correct in saying that this book has more documentary character than any other thing.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews