Tailism and the Dialectic Georg Lakécs ' Translated by Esther LeslieSome critiques of my hook His and Css Cinuciaess have appeared written by Comrades, Rudas and A, Deborin in issues IX, X anid XU of Avbeitirat which I simply cannot lt pass without a response. In and of themselves, the harshest critics would have been quite we come. In the intoduetion to my book p. xh) characterised i explicitly as a discussion document. There are many things in the book that I deem needfl of correction. I would formulate many of the things co tained therein quite differen toda: It is certainly not my intention & ef the bok tif I would be only oo glad if I could reyard it asco pletely redundant, if T could sce that its purpose had been fully accomplished, What is this purpose? To demonstrate methodalaly hat the organisation and tactics of Bolshevism ate the only posible conse quence of Marxism; to prove that, of necessity, the problems of Bolshevism follow logically ~ that is t0 say logically in a cnlectical sense from the method of materialist dialecis as implemented by is founders. Ifthe discussion of my book had left aot one stone standing, bbuc had meant dhat some progress had been achieved i this eespeet, would have silently enjoyed that progres, and not defended one single aim in my book, But my exites move instead in the opuse diecon, They use their polemics to muggle Menshevik elements into Marxism and Leninisn Thave to retaliate, Lamm not defending my book. 1am attacking the ‘open Menshevism of Deborin and the ta-ending of Rudas, Deborin48 A DEFENCE OF HISTORY AND cLAss caysciOLSNESS sticks to his guns: he was always Menshevik. Comrade Rudas is, how: ever a Bolshevik, I know him from many years of communal pasty ‘work, But precisely because of that Lam in no postion to reciprocate his acknowledgement (He never wavered for a minute. He was always an vowed enemy of opportunism’, rdeidrieaty IX, p. 493)! with com: ments on his activity. Questions about the development of the Hungarian Communist Party do not belong inthis debate, s0 instead 1 will develop Comrade Rudas’s —permaneady present ~ inclination towards talkending out of his philosophical arguments, And I wil draw ‘on only his latest poliieal article, which he wrote “after a two-year apprenticeship in the Russian CP" (Comrade ‘Trotsky on the Hungarian Prolesarian Revolution’, fpr TV; p. 162), in order wo ustrate his way ‘of seeing. In no way am T complaining, as Comrade Rudas suspect Aredeater XI, ps 1080), about ‘misunderstanding? No. T agree ‘with him that 'misinderstanlngs are not ofa logical type’. But precisely because of that I find it completely understandable that he does not understand me: he does not understand threo the rt in th relation and has therefore been anal to notice that my whole book i concerned with that question, ‘That is no surprise in che case of the Menshevik Deborin. ‘The opposite would be more surprising I. Problems of Class Consciousness 1. Subjects Every time an opportuni attack s made on the revolutionary dialect it proceeds under the banner ~ against subjectivim, (Bernstein against ‘Marc, Kautsky against Lenin.) Among the many im that Deborin ad Rudas ature to me (idealism, agnosticism, eclecticism, et) subjec tivnm takes pride of place. Inthe fllowing exposition T wil prove that ‘what is at stake is actualy always dhe question ofthe nol of the partyin ‘the resolution, snd that Deborin and Ruidas wage war against Bolshevism ‘shen they believe that they are fighting my subjectivim’ First of all, then: what isto be understood by the term “subject” ‘And — the next question is inseparable from the fist one, indeed its TAILISM AND THE DIALECTIC 49 answer allows one to answer the first question correctly ~ what isthe Function of the subject in the historical process of development? Rudas and Deborin share, in part, the vulgar stanépeint of bourgeois everylay Tile and it science: inflexibly and mechaninicaly they split subject fom object. They regard as worthy of scientific investigation only tha which isfree of any participation on the part of the subject, and they protest in a tone of extreme sciemific indignation if an actce and poster role is fccorded toa subjective moment in history Its only logical then that Deeborin assigns to me (Arbiter X,p. 629) the theory of the iden= tity of thought and being, of subject and object even though in my book it expres states that. their deny i that they are moments fof one and the same real historical and dialectical process’ (HCC, 204), The intentional and unintentional perversion of may thoughts into their opposite becomes understandable if we recall Deborin’s owe ‘conception of subject and objec, He says fp, 639) "that the se [ my italics} materialist sense of cis “manual influence” can only be its eon- ception a a process of labour, a8. process of production, a activity as ‘the srugale of society ith nat (oy tals) SSo.tor Deborin, there i alas srg, Society struggles with nature? and that i it What takes place within society is mere appearance, subs jectviam, Therefore for him ~ quite logically ~ subject = individual and ‘object = nature, oF subjeet ~ society an abject - nature ibid). Deborin ‘docs not acknowledge that a historial process takes place inside society, ‘whieh alters the eelationship between subject and object. To pur it milly historical materialism is hereby revised and turned into some- thing out of Comte or Herbert Spencer. Comrade Rudas does not go quite sofa. He admits that classes and class struggle exist. Indeed, thete are even passages in his writing where bhe mentions the existence and importance of proletarian activity and the tole of the party. Butt aways remains a formal acknowledgement ofthe Leninist theory of revolution. In general he quite consistently rep resents the opposite position. Let us hear i ror him himself: ‘What is "historical role"? A roe that ik every other one, takes pla inden ff although also through ~ aman conscousas of this role oc. cit, p 678, my italics) ‘Or: People have thoughts, fecings. They even set themselves goals