UNIT 19 LUKACS, GRAMSCl AND THE FRANKFURT

SCHOOL
Structure
1 9.1 Introduction
19.2 Georg Lultacs (1 885-1971 )
19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical Materialism
19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard 1'11esis
19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object
19.3 Antonio Grainsci (1 891-1937)
19.3.1 Notion of Hegemony
19.3.2 Role of Intellectuals
19.3.3 Philosophy of Praxis
19.3.4Relation between the Base and the Super-Structure and the Notion of Historic Bloc
19.4 Frankfurt Scllool (Or Critical Theory)
19.4.1 Opposition to all Forms of Domination
19.4.2 Critique of O~thodoxMarxism
19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation
19.5 Summary
19.6 Exercises

G' 19.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous unit, we have discussed the main ideas of the tl~reeprominent advocates of
Marxism: Marx, Lenin and Mao. As indicated earlier, all the three have contributed not only
to tile Marxist ~herzqv,but have also made significant contribution to revolutionary practice.
This is particularly true of Lenin and Mao. In this unit, we propose to discuss another three
major streams which have enriched Marxist theory. These are associated with Lukacs (a
Hungarian), Gramsci (an Italian) and the Frankfurt School (Germany). It is important for you
to remember that their contribution is more to theory than to revolutionarypractice. It is also
useful to bear in mind that besides these three, there are several others like Trotsky, Plekhanov,
Stajanovic, Altllusser, Kolakowski and Poulantazas etc. who have aIso contributed to the
thcory of Marxism. Similarly, many others including Che Geuvara, Regis Debray, Frantz
Fanon etc. have contributed a great deal both to the Marxist theory as well as to revolutionary
practice. However, in this unit the discussion will be limited only to Lukacs, Grarnsci and the
Frankfurt School.

19.2 GEORG LUKACS (1 885-1971)

Georg Lukacs was born at Budapest (Hungary) in 1885 (April 13). After graduating from
Budapest University, he studicd at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg. He had diverse
interests, During the first phase of his liFe, even while he was studying he devoted considerable
 time to literary criticism. In this field, his early works are Soz~land Form (1910), History of
Development of Modern Drama (19 1 I), Aesthetic Culture (1 9 13) and the Theory o f Novel
( 1 9 16). His initial inclination during this period was towards ethical idealism. Plato and Hegel
seem to have considerably infleunced him in this respect. Gradually, he was attracted by
Marxian philosophy and within a couple of years he got intensely involved in the communist
movement of his country. He joined the Communist Party of Hungary and became the Education
Minister in 191 9 in the short-lived Communist Government. After the fall of the communist
regime, he was tried by the new Hungarian Government and sentenced to death. He fled from
Hungary and spent nearly 20 years in Austria, Germany and the Soviet Union. It was during
his stay in Austria that he wrote his most seminal work - History and Class Consciousness.
This is the most important work of Lukacs and it has influenced a large number of Marxists.
In fact, the Student Movement in France and in other countries of Europe in the 1960s is said
to have been inspired by this work. The Frankfurt School was also influenced by him. He
returned to I-Iungary in 1945 to become a professor of Aesthetics at the Budapest University.
Here, he got actively involved in political activities and consequently, became a target of
serious criticism. In 1956, in the wake of de-Stalinization, he became the Minister of Culture
in the Communist Government of In~rayNagi in Hungary for a few months. After the fall o f
this government, he was deported to Romania but he returned in 1957. Thereafter, till his
death in 1971 (June 4) lie was engaged in writing philosophical and literaly works.

19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical Materialism

You would recall that Marx had predicted that when contradictions in capitalism would grow,
it would be overthrown in a revolution by the proletariat. However, it was noticed during the
twentieth century that this prediction of Marx did not come true and capitalism continued to
grow despite its periodic crises. It was a problem for all post-Marx Marxists to explain as to
why capitalis~nwas not coming to an end. In the previous lesson, we discussed that Lenin's
explanation was that capitalism was still surviving because it had reached its highest stage o f *,

imperialism which was the last stage of capitalism. Lukacs, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School
offered other answers to explain this phenomenon. Lukacs argued that for the overthrow o f
capitalism, the mere existence of the proletariat class was not enough as Marx had argued;
this proletariat must also acquire revolutionary consciousness. He was critical of the view that
Marxism was like physical sciences. He criticized Engel's argument that human behaviour
was governed by dialectical laws. He also criticized $ngels for applying dialectics to the
social world, because the interaction of subject and obje& in the social world is not the same
as in the natural world. He went on to say that thought does not merely mirror or reflect the
physical world sans mental activity. He rejected the Marxian theory of dialectical materialism.
Likewise, Gramsci questioned the very Marxian view that the economic base determines the
ideological political superstructure. He tried to explain how one class maintains its hold on
the other. He argued that the.rule of one class over the other does not depend merely on the
economic and physical power, it depends on the ability of the ruling class to impose its social,
cultural and moral valzres on the ruled. Thus, while Lukacs emphasized the role of consciousness
instead of material forces, Gramsci highlighted the role of cultural aspects instead of the
economic base determining the super structure.

Lukacs carried out a philosophic revisionism of Marxism. He questioned several key aspects
of Marxism, Leninism. He attacked historical ~naterialisniwhich is tlie very basis of Marxism.
He argued that it was vulgar Marxism to say that a set of economic laws will determine
whether the situation was ripe for revolution or not. He asserted that material conditions in
thernsclves cannot change history. Socialist revolution is not a consequence of sharpening of
just contradictions of capitalism. It is only when a class becomes conscious of these
contradictions that revolutiollary change occurs, TI-tus, he emphasized the creative role of
11uman consciousness. In the previous unit, it was pointed out that according to Marx, it is the
sharpening of contradictions between the forces or means of production and relations of
production that leads to changes in societyi Lukacs reversed this argument. He asserted that
contradictions between means and relations of production (which is a objective fact) cannot
itself bring about any change in society, unless there is a Iiuman subject (proletariat class)
which grasps this contradiction. To put it in other words, Lulcacs did not accept the basic
Marxian position that matter isprimary and mind secondary. Mere fact that there is exploitation
and alienation of the proletariat class is not enough to bring about a revolution; rather it is
only when the proletariat class becomes conscious of this alienation and exploitation that
revolution would talce place. Thus, Lukacs tool<a semi-Hegelian or quasi Hegelian position.
It allnost anzounted to saying that mind is primary and matter secondary. In fact, Lukacs
seeins to agree with the Marxian thesis of Feuerbach that the essential element in historical
evolution is not contradictidn, but prolctariatYsawareness about this contradiction which it
acquires when engaged in resolving it. Further, the proletariat's consciousness about this
contradiction is not direct, but only through its having experienced alienation. Lukacs, argument
is that in the socia! world (unlike the natural world) there are no objective historical laws
which are not subject to human control.

19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard Thesis

The above position of Lukacs also amourlts to a denial of Lenin's thesis about the role of the
Comnzunist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat, because he maintains that such
revolutionary consciousness will not come to the proletariat through some internzediary, but
directly by experiencing alienation and exploitation. Consciousness in this way does not remain
a super-structural category as in Marx. In Lenin's position as stated in What is to be Done
( I 902), the proletariat can acquire revolutionary consciousness (awareness about the need to
overtlirow capitalism) only by relying on outside elements (professional revolutionaries) who
have a clear awareness of historical evolution which the proletariat cannot have on its own.
The Colnmwnist Party, in Lenin's argument, represents a suitable mechanism for imparting
such revolutionary conscious~~ess to the proletariat; but for Lukacs the proletariat must acquire
this consciousness about its class position without any outside help. To a question as to how
the proletariat will acquire sucll revolutionary consciousness, Lukacs' response was that it
would come through Workers' Councils and not by the party organisation as Lenin had
maintained.

19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object

In classical materialism, consciousness is considered a mere reflection of reality and the only
valid category is totality which can be grasped by the dialectical method alone. Lukacs calls
it the "reflective" or copy theory 0.f knowledge which apprehends a false objectivity. This is
a very cornplex argument of Lukacs. He is saying that to stop at the reality of a mere object is
to grasp only at tlie appearance of things. According to him, the revolutionary praxis of the
PI-oletariatenables it to have. a new and higher form of consciousness. When tlie proletariat
begins to see Illat in capitalism, it Izas become a mere conimodity or a mere objecr, it ceases to
be a mere co~n~nodity and a mere object. It beco~nesa subject (agent of cl~ange).Thus,
comprehension of this reality enables it to change this reality. Lukacs further argued that
 object and subject (being and consciousness) are not related to each other as .base and ,sz4pept
structvre, but co-exist in a single dialectic. In other words, while Marx had argued that it is
the nlaterial conditions of society which change history, according to Lukacs consciousness is
not a si~nplereflection of the process of history, but it truly is an agent by which history may
be transformed. While consciolisness is aprodzrct of material conditions, it is also tlie driving
.force by which material conditions may be changed. While the orthodox Marxian position
states that the proletariat's conditions of existence determines their conscioz~ssne.s.s,Lukacs
tiiaintains that the proletariat's consciousness would change their conditions of existence.
Thus, conscio~~sness is the most decisive factor in the self-liberation of the proletariat. It is
through tlie acquisition of revolutionary consciousness that the proletariat transforrns itself
fro111 a 'C~LI.T.Sin it.reCf to a 'class for itself', from an object of history to a. subji;ct of fiistory.

Gra~nsciwas born in a poor f;t~nilyin Snrdina which was the poorest region of Italy. His father
was arrested for embezzlement when Granisci was a small child and sentenced to five years
imprisonment. In his absence, the family lived in utter poverty because of which Gratnsci
suffered physical deformity and became a hunchback. After some elementary education,
Gramsci started working in an office. In 191 1 he won a scholarship and joined Turin University.
At Turin, he noticed that there was a lot of difference in the standard of living in the rural
areas of Italy and its cities. While at the university, he got associated with the Italian Socialist
Party. By and by he was attracted to Marxist ideas. He was also influenced by Corce's emphasis
on the role of cu1tur.e and thozrght in the development of history. It was this idea of Cqrce
which provided the historical framework within which Grarnsci carried out his adapiation of
Marxian ideas. In 191 4-1 5 he attended a series of lectures on Marx which made him particularly
interested in the problem of relation between the base and the super-structzae. He began to
engage himself in the workers' movement. When the Italian Communist Party was founded
in 1921, Gramsci became one of its foundi~igmember. Soon, he became its General Secretary
and was also elected to the Italian Parliament. He was arrested in 1926 in the wake of the rise
of fascism and remained imprisoned till his death. During his prison life he wrote on several
topics. These writings were published later as l)ri,ron Notebooks. It is these Notebooks of
Gramsci which made him a great theoretician of Hegelian Marxisrn (alongwith Lukacs). His
other ma-jol-work is Modern Prince and other writings.

19.3.1 Notion sf Hegemony

Gratnsci's Pri.ro)z Nolebooks and Modern Prince and Other Writings deal with diverse issues
of politics, history, culture and philosophy, but in this i~nitwe will refer to only some ofthem:
his notion of hegemony, his views about the role of intellectuuls, hisphilosophy qfPr.axis and
his analysis of relations between the base and the szper-structure. Out of ail these, his notion
of hegennony is considered to be the most significant and original contribution of Granisci. In
tlie previous unit, it was pointed out that in all societies there are two classcs: the class which
owns the means of productio~iancl the class which owqs only labour power. The class which
owns the means of production establishes its rule ovcr (he class which owns labour power and
exploits it. Thus, in the Marxian scheme, the capitalist statc is the managing cornmittce ofthe
boul-gcoisie, wliich facilitates and legitimizes the exploitative processes in the society. It is
the econolnic power (or the ownership of means of productioi~)that enables the ruling class to
remain in power. Gralnsci contested this Marxian position. He argued that the ruling class
maintains its domination in diverse ways includi~igtlic use oj'jiorce, use of its economicpower
 and the conqent of the ruled. in other words, the bourgeois class maintains its domination not
merely by force, b ~ in~several
t nun-coercive ways. Two si~chnon-coercive ways prominently
come out in his writings. One of them is the ability of the ruling class to irnposr-: its own values
and belief systerns on the masses. Gramsci argued that the ruli~igclass uses various processes
of socializatioi~to impose its own c~llti~re on the r ~ ~ l eThe
d . ruling class atternpts lo C~IIII'OI the
minds of men by imposing its own cultuse on thein in several subtle ways. So, cuilz~~.rri/?egemo~)~
of the r1.1iingclass is the basis of its r ~ ~ l i npower.
g Secondly, he argues that the ruling class
does not always zvosk for its narrow class interest. in order to maintain its ruling position, it
enters into con~pru~i~ises and alliances with other groups in societies atld creates a historic
bloc. It is this strategy of creating a social bloc which enables the ruling class to get the
consent of the ruled. You will notice that this argument of Gramsci is completely at variance
with t1.1~orthodox Marxian position in wliiclz the class rule of the bo~~rgeois is justified on the
basis bf its control of means of,production. In oetler words, in the Grarnscian argument the
role of iileax and czrllure become central instead of tlie economic factor. Secondly, Cra~nsci's
explanation of dominance oTthe ruling class in terms of its co~~lpromises arid alliances with
other allies ~lnderplaysthe orthodox Marxian position in which the state is viewed nzerely as
the nza~aagingcommittee of the bourgeoisie. So ~nrlchso that Grarnsci also suggested a system
of alliances for the working class to enable it to overtllrow the bo~~rgeois rule. tie emphasized
the need for creating ii llistoric bloc.

19.3.2 Role sf Intellectuals

I-lerc n question arises as to how does the ruling class establisl~its hegemony in society?
Gramsci argued that it does so with the help of intellectuals. But he added that intellectuals
coi~ldalso play a significant tole in thcl: tcvolutionary trstnsforrnation of society. He argiled
thrtt intellectuals provide a philosophy tbr the masscs so tkat rtley i-io not questiot~the rrrling
,
I
position of the bourgeoisie. I n this respect, Grarnsci cnlked u f two categories ofiritellectuals:
I
11-cru'itioncrlinrellcctuals: nnld orglrnic intcllcctuals. l'he former largely refers to those who
thinlc thclt they are not linked to any class. In this se~Tsc,they are independent. Organic
intellect~~nls, OII t l ~ e
otl.rcr ha~id,are those who are actively and clusely associated either with
the rilliizg class or with the masses. 'Those who are associated with the rulil~gclass chum out
ideas, wlziclz helps in legitimizing the rule ofone class ovel. the otlter. 'I'hose who are associatecl
I
with the I.nasses work for ;lnd provide leadership to bring about revolutionary change it? society.
Such i~ltellectualsemerge from within the working class.

19.3.3 Philosophy of Praxis

Gramsci wrote in his Prison Notebooks that his l~hilosophyofpraxisis n rel'otnz and a developed
forin of Hegelianism. For Ilirn, philosophy of praxis is interactivrl of theory and practice. In
Marx's writings, praxis refers to creative and self-creative activity rllro~rghwhich human
j beings create and change their historical universe and themselves. It is activity specific to
human beings and it differentiates them ii-on1 other beings. It is a inix or rather intcraction of
I theory and pmctice in such a. way that theory enriches practice and practice enriches theory.
Marx had discussed the notion of praxis in lzis [I'hescsonFeuc~.hucl?. Gramsci treatcd Marxism
as the philosophy of praxis. He was himself involved in practical revolutionary activity. Glarnsci
maintains that rnan can affect his own development and that o f his own surroundings only in
so Far as he has a clear view of what possibilities of actions are open to him. To do this, he has
I
to ~~ndersland the historical situation in which he ,finds hi~nsqlfand once he does .that, he can
play an active part in modifyi~zgthat situation. The lnan o f action is tlie true philosopl~erand
 the philosopher must of necessity be a man of action. Gramsci holds the view that man does
not enter into relations with the natural world, just by being himself a part of it, but actively by
means of work and technique. It is only through historical awareness and understanding of
historical circumstances in which man finds himself that he can.remake his surroundings and
remake himself.

19.3.4 Relations between the Base and the Super-Structure and the
Notion of Historic Bloc
It was in 1914-1 5 when Gramsci attended some lectures on Marxism that he got interested in
the problenl of relations between the base and the super-structure. You would recall that Marx
had expressed the view that no society can undergo any transfor~nationtill necessary and
sufficient conditions for such transformation are already there. One form of society cannot be
replaced by another, unless it has developed all forms of life which are inherent and implicit
in its economic relationship. In the Critiqzre ofPolitica1 Economy, Marx had stated that "no
social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have
developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions
for their existence have matured in the womb of old society". For Marx, the economic order
of society constituted the base and the political order constituted the super structure, The
nature of super structure depended on the nature of the economic base. Gramsci modified this
Marxian position. He talked of a historic bloc. The historic bloc for Gramsci was a situation
when both objective and subjective forces combine to produce a revolutionary situation. It is
a situation when the old order is collapsit~gand there are also people with will and historical
insight to take advantage of this situation. The union of base and super-structure, material
conditions and ideologies, constitute the historic bloc. In other words, even when the material
forces have reached a point where revolution is possible, its occurrence would depend on
correct intellectual analysis in order to have a rational reflection of the contradictions of the
structure. e.

For Gramsci, dialectics means three things:

i) interaction between the intellectuals (party leaders) and the masses;

ii) explanation ofhistorical developments in terms ofthesis, anti-thesis and synthesis;

iii) the relation between the sub-structure and super-structure.

In vulgar Marxism, the super-structure i.e., ethics, laws, philosophy, art and the whole realm
of ideas is directly conditioned by the economic system, by means of production and exchange.
Material conditions determine man's consciousness' Gramsci criticized this view. Like Lukacs,
he argued that revolution and preparations for it would i~lvolveprofound changes in the
consciousness of masses. Dialectics in the physical world are different from dialectics in
society. In physical nature, it is the backlash of physical forces but in society, it is a moment
in which men contribute to becoming a deliberate force in the dialectical process. Thus, it is the
moment when sub-structure and szryer-sfrztctzlue interact on each other lo produce a historic
bloc.

You must have noticed that there is a lot in co~nlnonbetween Lukacs and Gramsci. Both
emphasized the role of cultural and philosophical factors in understanding historical materialism
of Marx. Both brought out the element of Hegelian idealism in Marx. Both attached greater
importance to consciousness than to material forces. Both saw the rclationship between the
base and the super str~icturein a new light.

19.4 FRANKFURT SCHOOL. (OR CRITICAL THEORY)

Frankfurt School refers to a group of philosophers who were together at the Frankfurt Institute
for Social Research during'the 1920s and 30s. Prominent members of the school were
Horkheimer, Adorno, Pollock, Eric Fromm, lVeuinann and Herbert'Marcuse. All of them, one
way or the other, contributed LO the Marxist theory. Of course, there were differences among
them on many issues, but there is some common streak which emerges from their writings.
Their view also came to be called Critical Theory. 'They were all critical of all forms of
domination and exploitation in society. They were also critical of they Stalinist variety of
socialism. They argued that Marxism was not a closed system. They are more concerned with
cultural and ideological issues than with political economy which is the core of ortliodox
Marxism.

19.4.1 Opposition to all Forms of Domination

At the very outset, you must understand the context in which they wrote and the issues which
bothered them. They wrote in a period which was marked by the rise ofNazism (in Germany)
and Fascism (in Italy). Moreover, the rise ol'Stalinisn~in the Soviet Union with its totalitarian
thrust was a cause of serious concern for them. They were also aware of the failure ofcommunist
movements in western Europe. They were critical of all ideologies because ideologies do not
offer a true account of reality. They were particularly critical ofthose ideologies which attempt
to conceal arid legitimize systems of exploitation and domination. Through critical analysis
of such ideologies, they wanted to trace the hidden roots of domi~~ation in them. By doing so,
they tried to create true consciousness among the inasses and prepare them for revolutionary
action. TIILIS,their goal like Marx is revolutionary transformation of society, but in a different.
way.

They were critical of cultilral and social philosophies and practices which aim at offering a
false escape from monotonous every day life under capitalism, or'whict~advocates the idea
that inequalities are not man-made, but natural or have corne from God.

19.4.2 Critique of Orthodox Marxism

The Frankfurt School tried to offer a critique of some of the notions of orthodox Marxism
whicl~had acquired repressive and authoritarian intent in the Soviet Union. Some of them
even went to the extent of saying that Marxism is not adequate to explain trends like
btrreaucratization. Like Lukacs and Gramsci, they also questioned the Marxian doctrine of
llistorical ~naterialismwhich tries to explain all stages in historical developments in economic
terms. They argued that it i~nderplaysthe role o r human subjectivity. In fact, they tried to
show that this 'detern~inist'thrust (economic base determining everything) was the result of
Marx's acceptance ofpositivist niethodologyof naturul sciences. Moreover, the contradiction
between forces and relations ofproduction may not have similar results in all societies. It will
depend on how people view these contradictions and how they try to resolve them. History is
made by the situated conduct of partially knowing subjects. Therefore, for understanding any
historical situation, it is essential to comprehencl the interplay between socio-economic structure
and social practices.
19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation
The central concern in the writings of the Franltfurt school is domination and azlthority. They
argued that in liberal as well as socialist societies, domination and authority are justified in
the name of reason which they call i n s l r u ~ ~ c nrationulity.
f~ll In fact, it is the result of the
application of the positivist methods of natural sciences to social sciences. In natural sciences,
we st~ldythe pllysical phenomenon with a view to control and regulate it, but in human sciences
the object of study of society should not be to control and regulate human beings, but to
emancipate them from all sorts of bondages. All socio-cultural practices in western as well as
eastern societies are aimed at stablizing the system of domination. In this sense, you can treat
the Franlcful-t School as the advocate of a counter-culture. They are also critical of autlioritarian
family structures and the socialization processes in education. They stand for sexual liberation
as well. They are critical of the processes by which public opinion is manipulated by political
pal-ties and through ~nasltetresearch and advertising agencies.

19.5 SUMMARY
In the foregoing pages, we have discussed three major streatns in Marxism which have been
witnessed during the twentieth century; those associated with Lukacs. Gramsci and the Franltfurt
School. While they do differ with each other in matters of detail, there are some common
elements in all the three of them. For example, they underplay the Marxian doctrine of historical
~uaterialismwhere the economic base detern.lines the super-structure. Instead, they emphasize
the role of human consciousness and will (Lukacs) and c~rlturalaspects (Gramsci and Frankfitst
School). All the three attempt to explain why bourgeois r~ileand capitalism have not been
overthrown as Marx had predicted. Why is it that despite the existence of a large proletariat
class in several societies, revolutionary change has not occurred? In their search for answers
to these questions, they found that the mere existence of the proletariat class is not enough for
a revolution to occur; this proletariat class must acquire the necessary revolutionary consciousness.
They also found that ruling classes are able to maintain tlieir hegemony and domination by
various subtle methods like imposing their cultural nouns, their beliefs and values on the masses.
It is the responsibility of intellectuals to guide the masses in this respect. They also explained
how and by what methods the authority structures of domination are legitimized in order to
ensure stability ofthe system.
*

19.6 EXERCISES
1) What is the main contri b ~ ~ t i oofnLultacs to the Masxist theory?

2) What did Gralnsci mean by hegemony'? In what way did lie modify the orthodox Marxian
position?

3) What is meant by the Frankfurt School? What critique of liberal and socialist societies
did it offer?