19.1 Introduction
In addition to Marx, Lenin, and Mao, three other major streams have enriched Marxist theory — those associated with Georg Lukacs (Hungarian), Antonio Gramsci (Italian), and the Frankfurt School (Germany). Their contribution is more to theory than to revolutionary practice. Other notable contributors to Marxist theory include Trotsky, Plekhanov, Althusser, Kolakowski, and Poulantzas; contributors to both theory and revolutionary practice include Che Guevara, Regis Debray, and Frantz Fanon.
19.2 Georg Lukacs (1885–1971)
Born at Budapest, Hungary (April 13, 1885). Graduated from Budapest University; studied at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg. Early works were in literary criticism: Soul and Form (1910), History of Development of Modern Drama (1911), Aesthetic Culture (1913), Theory of Novel (1916) — initial inclination towards ethical idealism, influenced by Plato and Hegel.
He gradually moved towards Marxist philosophy, joined the Communist Party of Hungary, and became Education Minister in the short-lived Communist Government (1919). After the regime fell, he was sentenced to death but fled; spent nearly 20 years in Austria, Germany, and the Soviet Union. During his stay in Austria, he wrote his most seminal work — History and Class Consciousness — which influenced a large number of Marxists, inspired the Student Movement in France and Europe in the 1960s, and also influenced the Frankfurt School.
He returned to Hungary in 1945 as Professor of Aesthetics at Budapest University. In 1956 (during de-Stalinization), he briefly became Minister of Culture in the Communist Government of Imray Nagy in Hungary. After that government’s fall, he was deported to Romania but returned in 1957 and remained engaged in philosophical and literary writing until his death (June 4, 1971).
19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical Materialism
The central problem for all post-Marx Marxists was: why had capitalism not been overthrown as Marx predicted, despite its periodic crises?
Lukacs’s answer: for the overthrow of capitalism, the mere existence of the proletariat class is not enough — this proletariat must also acquire revolutionary consciousness.
He was critical of the view that Marxism was like physical sciences. He criticised Engels’s argument that human behaviour is governed by dialectical laws and Engels’s application of dialectics to the social world — because the interaction of subject and object in the social world is not the same as in the natural world.
Key argument: He rejected the Marxian theory of dialectical materialism. Material conditions in themselves cannot change history. Socialist revolution is not a mere consequence of the sharpening of contradictions of capitalism. It is only when a class becomes conscious of these contradictions that revolutionary change occurs.
Reversing the Marxian argument: contradictions between means and relations of production (an objective fact) cannot itself bring about change in society unless there is a human subject (the proletariat) which grasps this contradiction. The mere fact of exploitation and alienation is not enough — revolution occurs only when the proletariat becomes conscious of this alienation and exploitation.
This was a semi-Hegelian or quasi-Hegelian position — almost amounting to saying that mind is primary and matter secondary. Lukacs seems to agree with the Marxian thesis of Feuerbach that the essential element in historical evolution is not contradiction itself, but the proletariat’s awareness about this contradiction acquired through the experience of resolving it. The proletariat’s consciousness is not direct but comes through having experienced alienation. In the social world (unlike the natural world), there are no objective historical laws not subject to human control.
19.2.2 Denial of Lenin’s Vanguard Thesis
Lukacs’s position amounts to a denial of Lenin’s vanguard thesis. He maintained that revolutionary consciousness will not come to the proletariat through some intermediary (professional revolutionaries/Communist Party), but directly by experiencing alienation and exploitation.
In Lenin’s position (What is to be Done?, 1902): the proletariat can acquire revolutionary consciousness only by relying on outside elements (professional revolutionaries) who have clear awareness of historical evolution that the proletariat cannot have on its own. The Communist Party is the mechanism for imparting such consciousness.
For Lukacs: the proletariat must acquire revolutionary consciousness about its class position without any outside help. It would come through Workers’ Councils — not through party organisation as Lenin had maintained.
19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object
In classical materialism, consciousness is a mere reflection of reality. Lukacs called this the “reflective” or copy theory of knowledge — which apprehends only the appearance of things, a false objectivity.
His argument: when the proletariat begins to see that in capitalism it has become a mere commodity or mere object, it ceases to be so. It becomes a subject (agent of change). Comprehension of this reality enables it to change this reality.
Key reformulation: object and subject (being and consciousness) are not related as base and superstructure, but co-exist in a single dialectic. While Marx argued that material conditions change history, Lukacs argued that consciousness is not simply a reflection of the process of history, but truly an agent by which history may be transformed. While consciousness is a product of material conditions, it is also the driving force by which material conditions may be changed.
The orthodox Marxian position: the proletariat’s conditions of existence determine their consciousness. Lukacs’s reversal: the proletariat’s consciousness would change their conditions of existence.
Thus, consciousness is the most decisive factor in the self-liberation of the proletariat. It is through the acquisition of revolutionary consciousness that the proletariat transforms itself from a “class in itself” to a “class for itself” — from an object of history to a subject of history.
19.3 Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937)
Born into a poor family in Sardinia — the poorest region of Italy. His father was arrested for embezzlement; in his absence the family lived in utter poverty, and Gramsci suffered physical deformity (became a hunchback). After elementary education, he started working in an office. Won a scholarship in 1911 and joined Turin University.
At Turin, he noticed a large difference in living standards between rural Italy and its cities; got associated with the Italian Socialist Party and was attracted to Marxist ideas. He was also influenced by Croce’s emphasis on the role of culture and thought in the development of history — this provided the historical framework within which Gramsci adapted Marxian ideas. In 1914–15, he attended lectures on Marx and became particularly interested in the relation between base and superstructure.
When the Italian Communist Party was founded in 1921, Gramsci became a founding member and soon its General Secretary; also elected to the Italian Parliament. Arrested in 1926 in the wake of the rise of fascism and remained imprisoned until his death. During imprisonment he wrote on several topics — published as Prison Notebooks. He also wrote Modern Prince and Other Writings. These works made him a great theoretician of Hegelian Marxism (alongside Lukacs).
19.3.1 Notion of Hegemony
Gramsci’s most significant and original contribution. In the orthodox Marxian scheme, the ruling class maintains its power through ownership of the means of production — the capitalist state is the “managing committee of the bourgeoisie.”
Gramsci contested this. He argued that the ruling class maintains its domination through:
- Use of force (coercion)
- Use of economic power
- Consent of the ruled (non-coercive means)
The two non-coercive ways are:
- Cultural hegemony: the ruling class imposes its own values and belief systems on the masses through various socialisation processes — controlling the minds of men in subtle ways. Cultural hegemony of the ruling class is the basis of its ruling power.
- Compromise and alliances: the ruling class does not always work for its narrow class interest. To maintain its ruling position, it enters into compromises and alliances with other groups, creating a historic bloc — enabling it to get the consent of the ruled.
This argument is completely at variance with the orthodox Marxian position (class rule justified purely by control of means of production). In Gramsci’s argument, the role of ideas and culture becomes central instead of the economic factor. This also underplays the orthodox Marxian view of the state as merely the managing committee of the bourgeoisie.
Gramsci’s practical corollary: since the ruling class maintains hegemony through cultural and ideological means and through creating a bloc, the working class must also create a historic bloc — a system of alliances — to enable it to overthrow the bourgeois rule.
19.3.2 Role of Intellectuals
How does the ruling class establish its hegemony? Through intellectuals. Gramsci identified two categories:
| Category | Description |
| Traditional intellectuals | Think they are not linked to any class; regard themselves as independent/autonomous |
| Organic intellectuals | Actively and closely associated either with the ruling class or with the masses |
- Organic intellectuals associated with the ruling class churn out ideas that legitimise the rule of one class over another.
- Organic intellectuals associated with the masses provide leadership and work to bring about revolutionary change in society — they emerge from within the working class.
19.3.3 Philosophy of Praxis
Gramsci wrote in his Prison Notebooks that his philosophy of praxis is a reform and developed form of Hegelianism. For him, philosophy of praxis = interaction of theory and practice.
In Marx’s writings, praxis refers to creative and self-creative activity through which human beings create and change their historical universe and themselves — it is activity specific to human beings, differentiating them from other beings. It is a mix and interaction of theory and practice: theory enriches practice and practice enriches theory. Marx discussed praxis in his Theses on Feuerbach. Gramsci treated Marxism as the philosophy of praxis.
Gramsci’s argument: man can affect his own development and that of his surroundings only in so far as he has a clear view of what possibilities of action are open to him. To do this, he must understand the historical situation in which he finds himself — and once he does that, he can play an active part in modifying that situation. The man of action is the true philosopher and the philosopher must of necessity be a man of action. It is only through historical awareness and understanding of historical circumstances that man can remake his surroundings and remake himself.
19.3.4 Relations between Base and Superstructure and the Notion of Historic Bloc
Marx’s position (Critique of Political Economy): “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.” The economic order = the base; the political order = the superstructure. The nature of superstructure depends on the nature of the economic base.
Gramsci modified this. He talked of a historic bloc: a situation when both objective and subjective forces combine to produce a revolutionary situation — when the old order is collapsing AND there are people with the will and historical insight to take advantage of this situation. The union of base and superstructure, material conditions and ideologies constitutes the historic bloc.
Even when material forces have reached a point where revolution is possible, its occurrence would depend on correct intellectual analysis — rational reflection of the contradictions of the structure.
For Gramsci, dialectics means three things:
- Interaction between intellectuals (party leaders) and the masses.
- Explanation of historical developments in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
- The relation between the sub-structure and superstructure.
In vulgar Marxism, the superstructure (ethics, laws, philosophy, art) is directly conditioned by the economic system. Gramsci (like Lukacs) argued that revolution would involve profound changes in the consciousness of masses. In society (unlike physical nature), dialectics is the moment when men contribute to becoming a deliberate force in the dialectical process — when sub-structure and superstructure interact on each other to produce a historic bloc.
Common ground between Lukacs and Gramsci: Both emphasised the role of cultural and philosophical factors over historical materialism; both brought out the element of Hegelian idealism in Marx; both attached greater importance to consciousness than to material forces; both saw the relationship between base and superstructure in a new light.
19.4 Frankfurt School (or Critical Theory)
The Frankfurt School refers to a group of philosophers at the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research during the 1920s and 30s. Prominent members: Horkheimer, Adorno, Pollock, Eric Fromm, Neumann, and Herbert Marcuse. Their collective view is also called Critical Theory.
Common characteristics:
- Critical of all forms of domination and exploitation in society.
- Critical of Stalinist variety of socialism.
- Argued that Marxism was not a closed system.
- More concerned with cultural and ideological issues than with political economy (the core of orthodox Marxism).
19.4.1 Opposition to All Forms of Domination
Context: They wrote during the rise of Nazism (Germany) and Fascism (Italy) and the Stalinist totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, alongside the failure of communist movements in western Europe.
They were critical of all ideologies — because ideologies do not offer a true account of reality; they are particularly critical of those ideologies which conceal and legitimise systems of exploitation and domination. Through critical analysis of such ideologies, they sought to trace the hidden roots of domination and create true consciousness among the masses to prepare them for revolutionary action.
They were critical of:
- Cultural and social philosophies that offer a false escape from monotonous everyday life under capitalism.
- Ideologies advocating that inequalities are natural or God-given rather than man-made.
19.4.2 Critique of Orthodox Marxism
The Frankfurt School critiqued notions of orthodox Marxism that had acquired repressive and authoritarian intent in the Soviet Union. Some went as far as saying Marxism is not adequate to explain trends like bureaucratisation.
Like Lukacs and Gramsci, they questioned the Marxian doctrine of historical materialism that explains all historical developments in economic terms — arguing it underplays the role of human subjectivity. They tried to show that this “determinist” thrust (economic base determining everything) was the result of Marx’s acceptance of the positivist methodology of natural sciences.
Moreover, the contradiction between forces and relations of production 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.” For understanding any historical situation, it is essential to comprehend the interplay between socio-economic structure and social practices.
19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation
The central concern in the Frankfurt School’s writings is domination and authority. They argued that in both liberal and socialist societies, domination and authority are justified in the name of reason — what they called “instrumental rationality” (Zweckrationalität). This is the result of applying positivist methods of natural sciences to social sciences.
In natural sciences, one studies physical phenomena to control and regulate it. But in human sciences, the object of studying 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 and eastern societies are aimed at stabilising the system of domination. In this sense, the Frankfurt School can be treated as the advocate of a counter-culture. They were also critical of:
- Authoritarian family structures and socialisation processes in education.
- The processes by which public opinion is manipulated by political parties, market research, and advertising agencies.
- They stood for sexual liberation as well.
19.5 Summary (Key Takeaways)
All three streams — Lukacs, Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School — share common elements while differing in detail:
- All underplay the Marxian doctrine of historical materialism (economic base determining superstructure) and instead emphasise the role of human consciousness and will (Lukacs) and cultural aspects (Gramsci and Frankfurt School).
- All three attempted to explain why bourgeois rule and capitalism had not been overthrown as Marx predicted — despite the existence of a large proletariat in several societies.
- Their common answer: the mere existence of the proletariat class is not enough for revolution — this class must acquire the necessary revolutionary consciousness.
- Ruling classes maintain their hegemony and domination through subtle methods — imposing their cultural norms, beliefs, and values on the masses (Gramsci’s hegemony; Frankfurt’s instrumental rationality).
- Intellectuals have a responsibility to guide the masses (Gramsci).
- All explained how authority structures of domination are legitimised to ensure stability of the system.
Lukacs specifically: reversed Marx’s base-superstructure determinism; rejected dialectical materialism; denied Lenin’s vanguard thesis; argued consciousness transforms the proletariat from “class in itself” to “class for itself.”
Gramsci specifically: hegemony = cultural domination + alliances/historic bloc; organic vs. traditional intellectuals; philosophy of praxis = interaction of theory and practice; historic bloc = union of objective material conditions and subjective ideological forces.
Frankfurt School specifically: all forms of domination in liberal and socialist societies; instrumental rationality as the root of domination; goal of emancipation (not control); counter-culture; critique of bureaucratisation, advertising, and manipulation of public opinion.
