Lukács_Georg - The Role of Morality in Communist Production

7/30/2019 Lukcs_Georg - The Role of Morality in Communist Production

1/4

The Role of Morality

in

Communist Production

By: Georg Lukcs

1919

First Published: in Hungarian in Szocials Termels, 1/11, 1919

Source: Georg Lukcs. Political Writings, 1919-1929

Published: N.L.B. 1972Edited: by Rodney Livingstone

Transcribed: by Brian Reid

The ultimate objective of communism is the construction of a society in which

freedom of morality will take the place of legal compulsion in the regulation of all

behaviour. Such a society necessarily presupposes, as every Marxist knows, the end of

class divisions. For, whether or not we think it possible for human nature in general to

permit a society based on a moral code (and in my view, the question cannot be put in

these terms) the power of morality cannot become effective, even given a decisively

affirmative answer, as long as there are still classes in society. Only one mode ofregulation is possible in society: the existence of two, one of which contradicts the

other or even merely deviates from it, could only lead to a state of complete anarchy.

If, however, a society is divided into several classes, or if to put it another way the

interests of the human groups who make up society are not the same, it is inevitable

that the regulation of human behaviour will conflict with the interests of the

indubitably decisive group, if not, indeed, of the majority of human beings. But

human beings cannot be induced to act voluntarily against their own interests, they

can only be compelled to do so whether this compulsion be of a physical or of a

spiritual kind. As long as there are different classes, therefore, it is inevitable that the

function of regulating social behaviour will be fulfilled by law, and not by morality.

But such a function of law does not end with the imposition of a mode of

behaviour on the oppressed classes in the interests of their oppressors. The class

interests of the ruling classes must be enforced even vis--vis the ruling class itself.

This second source of the necessity of law, the conflict of individual and class

interests, is of course not exclusively a consequence of the division of society into

classes. It is true, however, that this conflict has never been as acute as under

capitalism. Moreover, the very conditions of existence of capitalist society the

anarchy in production, the constant revolutionizing of production, production based

on motives of profit, and so on make it impossible from the outset to unite

individual and class interests harmoniously within one class. However self-evidently

individual and class interests have coincided whenever the capitalists confronted otherclasses (either the oppressed or other oppressors, e.g. agrarian feudal classes or

1


2/4

capitalists of a different country) whenever, that is, the class is obliged to adopt a

position to ensure the general possibility and direction of the oppression it has

nonetheless always proved impossible to unite individual and class interests once the

realization of that oppression has become concrete, once the question has been posed:

who is to become the oppressor, and whom, how many and to what extent is he to

exploit? Class solidarity in the capitalist classes is only possible when they lookoutwards, not when they are concerned only with themselves. This is why, within

these classes, morality could never have replaced the power of law.

The class situation of the proletariat, in both capitalist society and that which

will emerge from the defeat of capitalism, is exactly the opposite. Properly conceived,

the interest of the individual proletarian cannot be realized in its abstract potentiality,

but only in reality itself through the victory of his class interests. The very solidarity

propagated as an unattainable social ideal by the greatest bourgeois thinkers is in fact

a living presence in the class interests of the proletariat. The world-historical mission

of the proletariat manifests itself precisely in the fact that the fulfilment of its own

class interests will entail the social salvation of mankind.This salvation, however, will not simply emerge as the outcome of a merely

automatic process determined by natural laws. The victory of the idea over the

egoistic will of individual human beings is of course clearly implicit in the class-

dominating nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat; it is possible that the

immediate aim of the proletariat is likewise a class hegemony. Nevertheless, the

consistent implementation of this class hegemony will destroy class differences and

bring into being the classless society. For if the class hegemony of the proletariat is to

become truly effective, it can only liquidate class differences economically and

socially by in the final analysis forcing all human beings into that democracy of

the proletariat which is only an inner form of the manifestation of the dictatorship of

the proletariat within the framework of the class. The consistent implementation of thedictatorship of the proletariat can only end with the democracy of the proletariat

absorbing the dictatorship and making it superfluous. After classes have ceased to

exist, dictatorship can no longer be exercised against anybody.

The state, the chief cause of the exercise of legal compulsion, the cause whose

removal Engels had in mind when he said that the state withers away, thereby ceases

to exist. The question is, however: what is the pattern of the development within the

proletarian class? This is where the question of the socially effective function of

morality becomes problematic. It certainly played an important part in the ideologies

of the old society, but never made any substantial contribution to the development of

social reality itself. Nor could it, because the social pre-conditions for thedevelopment of class morality and its validity within a class namely the same

orientation of individual and class interests are present only in the proletariat. It is

only for the proletariat that solidarity, the subordination of personal interests to those

of the collective, coincides with the interests, erectly conceived, of the individual.

That social possibility now exists, inasmuch as all individuals belonging to the

proletariat can subordinate themselves to the interests of their class without detriment

to their personal interests. Such freedom of choice was not possible in the bourgeoisie,

ware order could only be enforced by law. For the bourgeoisie, morality could only

mean assuming that it exercised any real control over behaviour at all a principle

that went beyond class divisions and the existence of a class: in other words,

individual morality. This kind of morality unfortunately implies a level of human

2


3/4

culture which can become a general factor, effective for the total society, only in a

much later epoch.

The gulf between behaviour based on merely selfish interests and pure

morality is bridged by class morality, which will lead humanity into a new spiritual

each, into, as Engels says, the realm of freedom. But I repeat: this development will

not be a consequence of the automatic necessity of blind social forces it must be a

consequence of the free decision of the working class. For, after the victory of the

proletariat, compulsion will be necessary within the working class only insofar as

individuals are unable or unwilling to act in accordance with their own interests. If

compulsion, the organization of physical and spiritual violence, prevailed in capitalist

society even within the ruling class, it did so of necessity, because the individuals who

comprised a class had been led by the exorbitant demands of their individual interests

(greed for profit) to the dissolution of capitalist society. In contrast, the individual

interests of eve single proletarian, will, provided he assesses them correctly, strength

society. What matters is the correct understanding of these interests, the attainment of

that moral strength which enables one to subordinate inclinations, emotions andmomentary whims to ones real interests.

The point at which individual and class interests converge is in fact

characterized by increased production, a rise in productivity and a corresponding

strengthening of labour discipline. Without these things the proletariat cannot survive,

without them the class hegemony of the proletariat disappears without them (even if

we disregard the disastrous consequences entailed in such a dislocation of the class for

all proletarians), no single person can develop fully, not even as an individual. For it

is clear that those aspects of the power of the proletariat which are most oppressive

and whose immediate consequences every proletarian feels most keenly namely,

shortage of goods and high prices are a direct result of slackening labour discipline

and declining productivity. To effect a remedy for this state of affairs and therebyraise the level of the individuals concerned, the causes of such phenomena must be

removed.

There are two possible remedies. Either the individuals who constitute the

proletariat realize that they can help themselves only by voluntarily setting about the

strengthening of labour discipline and thereby raising productivity; or, where they as

individuals are incapable of doing so, they create institutions which are in a position

to carry out this necessary function. In the latter case they create for themselves a

legal order by means of which the proletariat compels its individual members, the

proletarians, to act in accordance with their class interests. The proletariat then

exercises dictatorship even against itself. Where the interests of the class are notcorrectly perceived and voluntarily adhered to, such measures are necessary if the

proletariat is to survive. They also, however and we must not disguise the problem

from ourselves involve great dangers for the future. If, on the one hand, the

proletariat creates its own labour discipline; if the labour system of the proletarian

state is built on a moral basis; then the external compulsion of the law will

automatically cease with the abolition of the class structure of society. In other words,

the state will wither away. This liquidation of the class structure will of itself create

the beginning of true human history as Marx prophesied and hoped. If, on the other

hand, the proletariat adopts a different course, it will be obliged to create for itself a

legal order which cannot be abolished automatically through historical progress. In

that case a tendency could evolve which would endanger both the physiognomy andthe achievability of the ultimate objective. For if the proletariat is compelled to create

3


4/4

a legal order in this way, that legal order must itself be overthrown and who can tell

what convulsions and sufferings will be caused by the transition from the realm of

necessity to the realm of freedom via such a circuitous path?

The question of labour discipline, therefore, does not relate simply to the

economic existence of the proletariat; it is also a moral question. Which in turn makes

it clear how correct Marx and Engels were when they asserted that the epoch of

freedom begins with the seizure of power by the proletariat. Progress is already no

longer governed by the laws of socially blip forces, but by the voluntary decision of

the proletariat. The direction, which social development takes depends on the self-

consciousness, the spiritual and moral character, the judgment and altruism of the

proletariat.

Thus the question of production becomes a moral question. It depends on the

proletariat whether or not the pre-history of man, the power of the economy over

men, of institutions and compulsion over morality, will now con; to an end. It depends

on the proletariat whether or not the real history of mankind is beginning: that is, the

power of morality over institutions and economy. True, social development createdthe possibility in the first place, but now the proletariat has actually in its hands not

only its own destiny, but the destiny of mankind. The criterion for the readiness of the

proletariat to take the control and leadership of society into its own hand is thereby

given. Until now the proletariat has been led by the laws of social development;

henceforth, the task of leadership is its own. Its decision will determine the

development of society. Every individual in the proletariat must now be conscious of

this responsibility. He must feel that it is he himself, his everyday work performance,

which will determine when the truly happy and free epoch begins for mankind. It is

inconceivable that the proletariat, which, under far more difficult conditions, has so

far remained true to its world-historical mission, should now abandon this mission at

the very moment when it is at last in a position to fulfil it through deeds.

4

Documents

Lukács_Georg - The Role of Morality in Communist Production