[FRA:] [marxistphilosophy] What is Orthodox Marxism? by Georg Lukacs

[rdumain at autodidactproject.org]

 "When the ideal of scientific knowledge is applied to nature it simply furthers the progress of science. But when it is applied to society it turns out to be an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie."

 When I posted this elsewhere, someone objected vigorously. What is this scientific ideal, where does it come from, how could the bourgeoisie dispose of it at will, and what is Marxist method according to Lukacs and what can it tell us?

 Objecting to Lukacs' theory of reification, he recommended:

 Science and Society 67 (1):39 - 67. 

 My point of departure was more generic, not even approaching the theory of reification per se, which also would not be as "concrete" as Marx's theory. As for Marxist method, etc., I would say that the point of departure of Lukacs circa 1923 was more abstractly philosophical than explaining the capitalist system and its culture in a concretely adequate form. He is criticizing 2nd International Marxism and scientism, and a certain philosophical conception of scientificity applied to social as opposed to natural phenomena. Central to this is a conception of the subject-object relation, taken up decades later by the Praxis School and much of "western marxism". The characterization of natural science as "contemplative" etc. is dubious, but the point is to highlight the subject-object dialectic central to social theory that is not recognized by scientism (as a philosophical orientation, "science" itself notwithstanding). All this is now commonsense to those familiar with this way of thinking, but Lukacs was the pioneer, and what he had to say still hasn't penetrated to the educated public at large in the English-speaking world. Think of how new all this old stuff would be to people who get excited by Dawkins, Pinker, etc. 

 The question with respect to this quote is, what is the social role of "science" when claims are made about social phenomena? Is social theory science? Is Marxism a science? Lukacs may be wrong, but if one looks at the social role of economics, sociology, political science, psychology, his observation may be largely correct. That is, when the scientific ideal IS applied to society in actuality, by social and natural scientists, popularizers, etc. not what it potentially might be. 

 Lukacs of course in 1967 criticized his former take on science. It is recognizable in other incarnations as the critique of instrumental reason, which can be found in many characterizations of the scientific revolution I don't find credible. This whole conception needs to be completely overhauled. Nevertheless, Lukacs, old concerns about the subject-object relation, the antinomies of bourgeois reason, and the praxis conception of social theory are still live topics. 

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:21:40 -0500, rdumain at autodidactproject.org wrote:

  What is Orthodox Marxism? by Georg Lukacs

 This essay starts off with the famous quote that Marxist orthdoxy is based solely on method, on the notion of the totality. But here are my favorite quotes. 

 "Fatalism and voluntarism are only mutually contradictory to an undialectical and unhistorical mind. In the dialectical view of history they prove to be necessarily complementary opposites, intellectual reflexes clearly expressing the antagonisms of capitalist society and the intractability of its problems when conceived in its own terms."

 Footnote 6: " It is of the first importance to realise that the method is limited here to the realms of history and society. The misunderstandings that arise from Engels’ account of dialectics can in the main be put down to the fact that Engels – following Hegel’s mistaken lead – extended the method to apply also to nature. However, the crucial determinants of dialectics – the interaction of subject and object, the unity of theory and practice, the historical changes in the reality underlying the categories as the root cause of changes in thought, etc. – are absent from our knowledge of nature."

 "When the ideal of scientific knowledge is applied to nature it simply furthers the progress of science. But when it is applied to society it turns out to be an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie."

 Lukacs expands on these notions, of course; I'm quoting minimally the essential ideas involved. More to come.