Lukacs: Lenin, NLB 1970 (first published Vienna 1924). 30/-.
The full title of this work, Lenin, A Study on the Unity of his Thought, sums up what Lukacs was attempting to accomplish when he wrote this work. It does not aim to deal exhaustively [illegible] show the [illegible] two, written in the belief that it is precisely this relationship which is not clearly enough in evidence, even in the minds of many Communists”. Following this [illegible] the Actuality of the Revolution, in the first chapter of the book.
What this extremely useful concept, central to Lenin's world vision, implied was that “the actuality of the proletarian revolution is no longer only a world historical horizon arching above the self-liberating working class, but that revolution is already on the agenda”. Here was the essential historical step forward from Marx to Lenin and the touchstone which differentiated Lenin from the opportunists and dogmatists, from the Kautskys and the Bernsteins. The revolution was not something appearing from the sky at a distant future date. Rather, it was an on-going process, presenting a series of tasks to the class. The course of the revolution would depend on just how successful the class was in facing these objective requirements.
Lenin's theory centres on this belief in the revolution as a present reality, a belief founded on a profound social and economic analysis.
His differences [illegible] to the proletariat’s role, be it vanguard class or agent to push the bourgeoisie to power [illegible] opposite is Chapter 3, “The Vanguard Party of the Proletariat”. He explains Lenin's concept of the Party not as an agent to make the revolution, which would be an absurdity, for the existence of the revolution is the raison d'etre of the Party. The Party must rather be the soul of the proletariat, it must always reflect the essential and not the ephemeral features of the class. The Party’s task is not to replace the spontaneity of the class but (to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto) “to point out and bring to the fore the common interests of the entire proletariat independent of all nationality...(to) always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole ...(to be) that section which pushes forward all the others; on the other hand they (the Communists) have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” This description of the role of the Communists gained fresh importance with the development of a labour aristocracy in the west, which increased the dangers of partial interests gaining ascendancy.
The Party had to prepare the revolution. It must attempt to prepare the proletariat for the “ideological tactical material and organisational tasks that necessarily arise in an acutely revolutionary situation”.
Lukacs points to Lenin's genius as lying in his ability to transform theory into the point where it breaks into practice. His economic analysis, Lukacs considers, may not measure up to that of Luxemburg in sophistication. His superiority, however, lies in his ability to concretise his theoretically correct assessment, to realise the tasks of the proletariat from the general analysis. Lukacs details the collapse of the Second International as an inevitable consequence of its past development, just as Lenin's ability to maintain a principled line sprang from his theoretical grasp of the revolution as an actuality, and of the tasks of the proletariat to make civil war against their respective bourgeoisies.
[illegible] publishers, NLB, have chosen to issue it (30/- for 104 pages). Its description of the Leninist concept of the Party implicitly provides a critique of degenerated Communist Parties which masquerade as the heirs of the Marxist tradition.
Some criticisms, however, must be made of the work. Lukacs sees quite correctly that the actuality of the proletarian revolution means that the bourgeoisie cannot play a progressive role and that it must abandon the realisation of its former revolutionary demands to the proletariat, preferring instead to seek the safety of compromise with the old ruling powers. He approaches the Theory of Permanent Revolution, but what he does not do is to provide a real analysis of the development of Lenin's position on this question. This failing is again evidenced in the thinness of the section on the International, which he mentions as “The Bolshevik Party—on a world scale”. Nowhere does he come to grips with the evolution of thought on the question of uneven and combined development, which would involve a mention of Trotsky as well as Lenin's role in the struggle for theoretical clarity. So that, while very far from being a Stalinist work, Lukacs’ book nevertheless does implicitly distort the picture in a similar manner, by highlighting Lenin’s theoretical contribution in isolation. Although Lukacs explicitly does not lay claim to giving an exhaustive account of Lenin's theory and practice, these omissions are very significant ones, and do much to elucidate Lukacs’ later development and the postscript to the book.
In his postscript, which is far inferior to the remainder of the book, Lukacs cites as understandable the present interest in the oppositional theories of the ‘20s. However, he goes on to say that “there is no question that anyone else at that time could have provided an analysis or perspective which could have given a [illegible]” [illegible] although Lukacs believes that the Marxist critique of Stalin has now become available, he has not achieved a true negation of Stalinism and that failure lies in his inability to come to grips with the tasks presented by the international movement in the ‘20s and later, the roots of which can be seen in this book. Lukacs has in fact fallen foul of his own concept—for him, the revolution has ceased to be an actuality. However, all this is perhaps more interesting in the context of the development of Lukacs himself, and we should not let these failings distract us from the objective role of the book in the class struggle which is undoubtedly a positive one.
To conclude on a lighter note, in an otherwise uninspired postscript there is one quotation which makes it well worth reading. It is Gorky's [illegible] of Lenin['s] comments [illegible] “The [illegible] most beautiful thing I know; I could listen to it every day. What wonderful, almost superhuman music! I always think with pride—perhaps it is naive of me—what marvellous things human beings can do.” Then he screwed up his eyes, smiled and added regretfully, “But I can’t listen to music too often. It works on my nerves so that I would rather talk foolishness and stroke the heads of people who live in this filthy hell and can still create such beauty. But now is not the time to stroke heads—you might get your hand bitten off. We must hit people mercilessly on the head, even when we are ideally against any violence between men. Oh! our work is hellishly difficult.”