HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION(1967 wrong to maintain that ' expe IS contemplation scen as the conceptual embodiment of the revolutionary principle My own account efutes this. For the creation of a situation in in science. The primacy of the category of totality is the bearer which the natural forces under investigation can function purely, of the revolutionary principle in science. i. e. without outside interference or subjective error, is quite There is no doubt that such paradoxes of method played a not comparable to the case of work in that it too implies the creation unimportant and in many ways very progressive role in the of a teleological system, admittedly of a special kind. In its essence it is therefore pure praxis. It was no less a mistake to vival of Hegel's dialectics struck a hard blow at the revisionist deny that industry is praxis and to see in it"in a historical and tradition. already Bernstein had wished to eliminate everything dialectical sense only the object and not the subject of the natural reminiscent of Hegel's dialectics in the name of 'sc ence laws of society". The half-truth contained in this sentence-and was further from the mind of his philosophical opponent it is no more than a half-truth at best-applies only to the eco- bove all Kautsky, than the wish to undertake the defence of nomic totality of capitalist production, But it is by no means contra- tradition. For anyone wishing to return to the revolutionary dicted by the fact that every single act in industrial production traditions of Marxism the revival of the Hegelian traditions wa not only represents a synthesis of teleological acts of work but is obligatory. History and Class Consciousness represents what was also itself a teleological, i.e. practical, act in this very synthesis. haps the most radical attempt to restore the revolutionary nature It is in line with such philosophical misconceptions that History of Marx's theories by renovating and extending Hegel's dialect nd class consciousness should begin its analysis of economic phenom and method. The task was made even more important by the ena not with a consideration of work but only of the complicated fact that bourgeois philosophy at the time showed signs of a structures of a developed commodity economy. This means that owing interest in Hegel, Of course they never succeeded in all prospects of advancing to decisive questions like the relation aking Hegel's breach with Kant the foundation of their analysis of theory to practice and subject to object are frustrated from the and, on the other hand they were influenced by Dilthey's attempts outset. In these and similarly problematical premises we see the result and modern irrationalism. a little while after the appearance of of a failure to subject the Hegelian heritage to a thoroughgoing History and Class Consciousness Kroner described Hegel as the materialist reinterpretation and hence to transcend and preserve greatest irrationalist of all time and in Lowith's later studies I would once again cite a central problem of principle. It is Marx and Kierkegaard were to emerge as allel phenomena undoubtedly one of the great achievements of History and class out of the dissolution of Hegelianism. It is by contrast with all Consciousness to have reinstated the category of totality in the these developments that we can best see the relevance of History central position it had occupied throughout Marx's works ar and Class Consciousness. Another fact contributing to its importance from which it had been ousted by the'scientism'of the social to the ideology of the radical workers'movement was that democratic opportunists. I did not know at the time that Lenin whereas Plekhanov and others had vastly overestimated Feuer was moving in a similar direction. (The philosophical fragments ch's role as an intermediary between Hegel and Marx, this were published nine years after the appearance of History and was relegated to the background here. Anticipating the publica- Class Consciousness. But whereas Lenin really brought about a tion of Lenin's later philosophical studies by some years, it newal of the marxian method my efforts resulted in a- nevertheless only somewhat later, in the essay on Moses Hess Hegelian-distortion, in which I put the totality in the centre of that I explicitly argued that Marx followed directly from Hegel the system, overriding the priority of economics. "It is not the However, this position is contained implicitly in many of the primacy of economic motives in historical explanation that con- discussions in History and Class Consciousnes stitutes the decisive difference between Marxism and bourgeois In a necessarily brief summary it is not possible to undertake a science, but the point of view of totality. This methodological concrete criticism of all the issues raised by the book, and to show paradox was intensified further by the fact that the totality was how far the interpretation of Hegel it contained was a source of
HISTORY ANDCLASSCONSCIOUSNESS PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION (1967) ion and how far it pointed towards the future. The con- this stage in its class consciousness, thus becoming the identical temporary reader who is qualified to criticise will certainly find subject-object of history. This does indeed appear to 'stand Hegel evidence of both tendencies. To assess the impact of the book on his feet'; it appears as if the logico-metaphysical construction at that time, and also its relevance today, we must consider one of the Phenomenology of Mind had found its authentic realisation in problem that surpasses in its importance all questions of detail. the existence and the consciousness of the proletariat. And this This is the question of alienation, which, for the first time smy appears in turn to provide a philosophical foundation for the Marx, is treated as central to the revolutionary critique of capita proletariat,'s efforts to form a classless society through revolution ism and which has its theoretical and methodological roots in the and to conclude the 'prehistory'of mankind. But is the identical Hegelian dialectic. Of course the problem was in the air at the subject-object here anything more in truth than a purely metaphy time. Some years later, following the publication of Heidegger's sical construct? Can a genuinely identical subject-object be Being and Time(1927), it moved into the centre of philosophical de- bate. Even today it has not lost this position, largely because of the based on an adequate knowledge of society, i.e. however perfect influence of Sartre, his followers and his opponents. The philo that self-knowledge is? We need only formulate the sophical problem raised above all by Lucien Goldmann when he precisely to see that it must be answered in the negative For even interpreted Heidegger's work in part as a polemical reply to when the content of knowledge is referred back to the knowing mine--which however was not mentioned explicitly-can be subject, this does not mean that the act of cognition is thereby freed of its alienated nature. In the Phenomenology of Mind Hegel air is perfectly adequate, particularly as it is not possible to discuss rightly dismisses the notion of a mystical and irrationalistic the reasons for this here and to lay bare the mixture of Marxist realisation of the identical subject-object, of Schelling's intellec- and Existentialist ideas that were so infuential after World War tual intuition, calling instead for a philosophical and rational Il, especially in France. The question of who was first and who solution to the problem. His healthy sense of reality induced nfuenced whom is not particularly interesting here. What is him to leave the matter at this juncture; his very general system nportant is that the alienation of man is a crucial problem of the does indeed culminate in the vision of such a realisation but he age in which we live and is recognised as such by both bourgeon never shows in concrete terms how it might be achieved. Thus and proletarian thinkers, by commentators on both right and the proletariat seen as the identical subject-object of the real left. Hence History and Class Consciousness had a profound impac history of mankind is no materialist consummation that over- in youthful intellectual circles; I know of a whole host of good comes the constructions of idealism. It is rather an attempt to Communists who were won over to the movement by this very out-Hegel Hegel, it is an edifice boldly erected above every fact, Without a doubt the fact that this Marxist and Hegelian ossible reality and thus attempts objectively to surpass the question was taken up by a Communist was one reason why the Master himself. pact of the book went far beyond the limits of the party. Hegel's reluctance to commit himself on this point is As to the way in which the problem was actually dealt with, it of the wrong-headedness of his basic concept. For it is in Hegel is not hard to see today that it was treated in purely Hegelian that we first encounter alienation as the fundamental probler terms. In particular its ultimate philosophical foundation is of the place of man in the world and ois-d-vis the world. However, the identical subject-object that realises itself in the historical in the term alienation he includes every type of objectification. process. Of course, in Hegel it arises in a purely logical and Thus 'alienation'when taken to its logical conclusion is identical philosophical form when the highest stage of absolute spirit is objectification. Therefore, when attained in philosophy by abolishing alienation and by the return object transcends alienation it must also transcend objectification of self-consciousness to itself, thus realising the identical subject at the same time. But as, according to Hegel, the object, the thing object. In History and Class Consciousness, however, this process is exists only as an alienation from self-consciousness, to take it socio-historical and it culminates when th oletariat reaches back into the subject would mean the end of objective reality
PREFACE TO THE NEW and thus of any reality at all. History and Class Consciousness follows identical with it; here the two words were used synonymously. Hegel in that it too equates alienation with objectification This critique of the basic concepts cannot hope to be compre- [Vergegenstandlichul se the term employed by Marx hensive. But even in an account as brief as this mention must in the Economic-Philosophical crits). This fundamental and be made of my rejection of the view that knowledge is reflection. crude error has certainly contributed greatly to the success This had two sources. The first was my deep abhorrence of the enjoyed by History and Class Consciousness. The unmasking of mechanistic fatalism which was the normal concomitant alienation by philosophy was in the air, as we have remarked, reflection theory in mechanistic materialism. Against this my Ind it soon became a central problem in the type of cultural messianic uto ism, the predominance of praxis in my thought criticism that undertook to scrutinise the condition of man in rebelled in passionate protest-a protest that, once again, was contemporary capitalism. In the philosophical, cultural criticism not wholly misguided. In the second place I recognised the way of the bourgeoisie(and we need look no further than Heidegger) in which praxis had its origins and its roots in work. The most it was natural to sublimate a critique of society into a purely primitive kind of work, such as the quarrying of stones by primeval philosophical problem, i.e. to convert an essentially social aliena man, implies a correct reflection of the reality he is concerned tion into an etermal'condition humaine, to use a term not coined with, For no purposive activity can be carried out in the absence until somewhat later. It is evident that History and Class Conscious- of an image, however crude, of the practical reality involved. ness met such attitudes half-way, even though its intentions had Practice can only be a fulfilment and a criterion of theory when it been different and indeed opposed to them. For when I identified is based on what is held to be a correct reflection of reality. It alienation with objectification I meant this as a societal category would be unrewarding at this point to detail the arguments that -socialism would after all abolish alienation--but its irredu justify rejecting the analogy with photography which is so preva- cible presence in class society and above all its basis in philosophy lent: in the current debate on reflection theories brought it into the vicinity of the condition humaine It is, I believe, no contradiction that I should have spoken This follows from the frequently stressed false identification here so exclusively of the negative aspects of History and Class of opposed fundamental categories. For objectification is indeed Consciousness while asserting that nevertheless the book was not a phenomenon that cannot be eliminated from human life in without importance in its day. The very fact that all the errors society. If we bear in mind that every externalisation of an listed here have their source not so much in the idiosyncracies object in practice(and hence, too, in work) is an objectification, of the author as in the prevalent, if often mistaken, tendencies that every human expression including speech objectifies human of the age gives the book a certain claim to be regarded as repre- thoughts and feelings, then it is clear that we are dealing with a ntative. A momentous, world-historical change was stru to find a theoretical expression. Even if a theory was unable to do is the case, objectification is a neutral phenomenon; the true is as ustice to the objective nature of the great crisis, it might yet much an objectification as the false, liberation as much as en- formulate a typical view and thus achieve a certain historical slavement. Only when the objectified forms in society acquire validity. This was the case, as I believe today, with History and functions that bring the essence of man into conflict with his Class Consciousness xistence, only when man' s nature is subjugated, deformed and However, it is by no means my intention to pretend that all crippled can we speak of an objective societal condition of aliena- the ideas contained in the book are mistaken without exception. tion and, as an inexorable consequence, of all the subjective The introductory comments in the first essay, for example, give marks of an internal alienation. This duality was not acknow- a definition of orthodoxy in Marxism which I now think not only ledged in History and Class Consciousness. And this is why it is so objectively correct but also capable of exerting a considerable wide of the mark in its basic view of the history of philosophy. (We note in passing that the phenomenon of reification is closely sance. I refer to this passage: "Let us assume that recent research related to that of alienation but is neither socially nor conceptually had proved once and for all that every one of Marx's individual
HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS REFACE TO THE NEW EDITION(1967) theses was false. Even if this were to be proved every of that orthodox Marxist would still be able to accept all such merely of the description of that existence). On the other hand conclusions without reservation and hence dismiss every their sequence, their coherence and their interconnections must one of Marx's theses-without g compelled for minute to renounce his orthodoxy. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, physiognomy of the present. Thus the sequence and the inner does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the belief'in this or that thesis, not the merely organised in conformity with the historical facts as they exegesis of a'sacred book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers happen to be given. "s This line of reasoning concludes, as is exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical m marx's famous study of Marxism is the road to truth and that its methods can be devel- method, made in the fifties. Passages like this one which anticipate oped, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to are not infrequent. surpass or improve it have led and must lead to over-simplifica If I have concentrated on my errors, there have been mainly tion, triviality and eclecticism. "7 practical reasons for it. It is a fact that History and Class Conscious And without feeling myself to be excessively immodest, I believe ness had a powerful effect on many readers and continues to that a number of equally true ideas can be found in the book. do so even today. If it is the true arguments that achieve this I need only refer to the fact that i included the early works of impact, then all is well and the author's reaction is wholly Marx in the overall picture of his world-view i did this at a uninteresting and irrelevant. Unfortunately I know it to be the time when most Marxists were unwilling to see in them more case that, owing to the way society has developed and to the than historical documents that were important only for his per political theories this development has produced, it is precisely sonal development. Moreover, History and Class Consciousness cannot those parts of the book that I regard as theoretically false that be blamed if, decades later, the relationship was reversed so that have been most influential. For this reason I see it as my duty on the early works were seen as the products of the true Marxist the occasion of a reprint after more than 40 years to pronounce philosophy, while the later works were neglected. Rightly or upon the books negative tendencies and to warn my readers wrongly, I had always treated Marx's works as having an essential against errors that were hard to avoid then, perhaps, but which have long ceased to be so nor do i wish to deny that in a number of places the attem I have already said that Histoy and Class Consciousness was. n is made to depict the real nature and the movement of the dialectical categories. This points forward to a genuine Marxist quite a definite sense the summation and conclusion of a per i ontology of existence in society. For example, the category of showed this even more clearly. above all my messianic utopian mediation is represented in this way: "Thus the category of ism lost(and was even seen to lose) its real grip on me. Lenin died mediation is a lever with which to overcome the mere immediacy in 1924. The party struggles that followed his death were con of the empirical world and as such it is not anything(subjective) centrated increasingly on the debate about whether socialism that has been foisted on to the objects from outside; it is no value could survive in one country. That it was possible in theory Lenin posed to their 'Is. It is rather the near prosp manifestation of their authentic objective structure. "8 And closely related world revolution made it appear particularly theoretical and to this is the discussion of the connection between genesis and abstract. The fact that it was now taken seriously proved that a history: " That genesis and history should coincide or orld revolution could not be held to be imminent in these years. factly, that they should be different aspects of the same (Only with the slump in 1929 did it re-emerge from time to time can only happen if two conditions are fulfilled. On the one as a possibility. ) Moreover, after 1924 the Third International all the categories in which human existence is construct correctly defined the position of the capitalist world as one of
xxViii HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION relative stability'. These facts meant that I had to re-think my repelled by his attitude here. However, it did nothing to retard In the debates of the r my gradual disenchantment with the ultra-left tendencies of my with Stalin about the necessity for socialism in one co untry and early revolutionary years as most of the left-wing groupings in the this shows very clearly the start of a new epoch in my though European parties were Trotskyite--a position which I always More immediately, this was brought about mainly by my rejected. Of course, if I was against Ruth Fischer and Maslow experience in working for the Hungarian Party. The correct in their attitude to German problems-and it was these with policy of the Landler faction began to bear fruit. The Party, which I was always most concerned-this does not mean that I working in conditions of strict illegality, steadily increased its was in sympathy with Brandler and Thalheimer. To clear my influence on the left wing of the Social Democrats so that in own mind and to achieve a political and theoretical self-under 1924-25 it came to a split and the founding of a workers'Party standing I was engaged at the time on a search for a genuine that would be radical and yet legal. This party was led illegally left-wing programme that would provide a third alternative oy Communists and for its strategic objective it had chosen the to the opposing factions in Germany. But the idea of such a theor- task of establishing democracy in Hungary. While the efforts etical and political solution to the contradictions in the period of this party culminated in the call for a republic the Communist transition doomed to remain a dream. i never succeeded in Party continued to pursue the aim of a dictatorship of the pro solving it to my own satisfaction and so I did not publish any letariat, At the tim ne i was in agreement with this tactical policy theoretical or political contribution on the international level but was increasingly tormented by a whole complex of unresolved problems concerning the theoretical justification of such a posi The situation was different in the Hungarian movement. Landler died in 1928 and in 1929 the party prepared for its These considerations began to undermine the bases of the ideas Second Congress. I was given the task of drafting the political I had formed during the period 1917-24. A contributory factor theses for the Congress. This brought me face to face with my old problem in the Hungarian question: can a party opt simultane- revolutionary ferment inevitably led to co-operation among the ously for two different strategic objectives(legally for a republic, illegally for a soviet republic)? Or looked at from another angle: strong growth of a reactionary movement. In the Hungary of can the party's attitude towards the form of the state be a matter horthy this was an obvious necessity for any legal and left-wing of purely tactical expediency (i.e. with the illegal Communist radical workers'party. But even in the international movement movement as the genuine objective while the legal party is no there were similar tendencies. In 1922 the march on Rome had more than a tactical manoeuvre)? A thorough analysis of the aken place and in germany, too, the next few years brought a social and economic situation in Hungary convinced me more and growth in National Socialism, an increasing concentration of more that Landler with his strategic policy in favour of a republic the forces of reaction. This put the problems of a United Front had instinctively touched on the central issue of a correct revolu and a Popular Front on the agenda and these had to be discussed tionary plan for Hungary: even if the Horthy regime had under on the plane of theory as well as strategy and tactics. Moreover, gone such a profound crisis as to create the objective conditions few initiatives could be expected from the Third International for a thorough-going revolution, Hungary would still be unable which was being influenced more and more strongly by Stalinist to make the transition directly to a soviet republic. Therefore, tactics. Tactically it swung back and forth between right an the legal policy of working for a republic had to be concretised to nean what Lenin meant in 1905 by a democratic dictatorship when,around 1928, he described the of the workers and peasants. It is hard for most people to imagine Social Democrats as thetwin brothers'of the Fascists. This pr how paradoxical this sounded then. Although the Sixth Congress an end to all prospects of a United Front on the left. Although of the Third International did mention this I was on Stalins side on the central issue of Russia, I was deeply was generally thought to be historically impossible to take such a