A short yet theoretically dense collection of dialogues between Lukacs and three West German Marxist theorists, Conversations with Lukacs is an interesting collection of Lukacs thoughts without the coherence of a constant subject to hold it together. One wonders who it was to be published for: it is too philosophical to be a general introduction to the thought of Lukacs, and yet too introductory to bring anything truly new to the table for someone familiar with Lukacs’ oeuvre. The first conversation on “Being and Consciousness” with Hans Heinz Holz yields an interesting comment on Leibniz, in that “the study of Leibniz is one of the great omissions of Marxism” (25). There is also a critique of Stalin era socialist realism as “establishment naturalism,” but the actual theoretical content of this critique is unclear (36-37).
The second conversation on “Society and the Individual” with Leo Kofler has some interesting observations from Lukacs on late capitalism, namely the rise of relative surplus value as well as the service economy (53-54). He has an interesting comparison for the sexual revolution as “an equivalent of [Luddite] machine-wrecking in the battle for female independence,” which while harsh, is more sympathetic than many of his Marxist contemporaries (60-61). His idea that the “reform of man” should be the central task of Marxism brings him closer to Mao and the pre-1980s Chinese Revolution than he would like to admit (59). The third conversation, “Elements for Scientific Politics” with Wolfgang Abendroth, has Lukacs lamenting the lack of a truly innovative figure of tactics and theory such as Lenin, which largely devolves into Lukacs’ usual hero worship of Lenin rather than anything of substance. He critiques Togliatti as a poor theorist, and argues that the Frankfurt School is deficient through its inheritance of “German pessimism” (84, 93). He critiques the general tendency of party leaders as theorists, and instead calls for a “brains trust” model of advising intellectuals to the party in the socialist countries, which is interesting but seems prone to simply reproducing his disdained bureaucracy. (99). He shows some familiarity with C. Wright Mills, which is interesting (114-115).
The last conversation, “Provisional Summary” with Abendroth and Holz, yields very little. He sadly retains and defends the Asiatic mode of production (fashionable for the time, as Immanuel Wallerstein and Wittfogel did as well), just as he did with his critique of Stalin in “Reflections on the Cult of Stalin” and The Process of Democratization, which is one of the undoubtedly good modifications made to Marxist theory during the Stalin era (140). He reiterates his critique of the Stalin era as a subordination of theory to practice rather than a dialectical relationship between the two (153). The work isn’t bad, but it certainly isn’t necessary reading for those interested in Lukacs.