Talk:György Lukács

Name

The tag "szegedi" before the 'real' name Lukács György indicates that the Lukács family had (1) nobility and (2) originated from the city of Szeged. However, such tags were only used in extremely formal situations. They were regarded more as addition to the name of an individual than a part of it. (This is indicated by the fact that they were never capitalized.)

So why is it capitalized in the article?

Why is it that Lukács' full name is not used at the beginning of this article. According to http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Georg_Lukacs, his full name in Hungarian was Szegedi Lukács György Bernát - his full name in German is listed underneath his image in the infobox. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

recent edit

Regarding the recent edit [1] : first, that is not a minor edit by any standard. Second, the opinion that Lukács was an "apologist for Stalinism" is pure POV. It would be best to Avoid weasel words and cite a source for this opinion, rather than contend that it "is generally believed," which is dubious in any case. -- Rbellin 01:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wotcher. The accusation leveled against Lukacs for Stalinism is very real, its the usual left gutter murmurings, and also (probably) in a couple of reviewed articles on him. However, its not a dominant opinion and it certainly doesn't account for Lukacs' repeated wanderings from the Party Line and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. Lukacs is best thought of as a dissident within Leninism, but more importantly, within the active Soviet Union inspired Communist Movement. Lukacs dreaded being isolated from /the/ revolution, you know /the one/ that began in October. So I've modified the section to make that clear, and altered the POV element. I wish I could find a cite, but I only know Lukacs in the 44-63 period. Fifelfoo 00:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much improved. It would still be much better to cite a source for this opinion, though. -- Rbellin 03:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The original piece wasn't mine, I just edited away what NPOV I could. Someone who is a Lukacs specialist needs to do the cite work. Maybe wikipedia needs a standard header "This article lacks citations. If you can add citations to substantiate some of the views present in this article, please do so." just like the stub headerFifelfoo 05:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apologies re: "apologist for Stalinism" addition; I was unaware it would be quite so contentious; regarding its minor edit status, I felt it continued logically from the discussion of the rest of the para, but evidently that was my misunderstanding. The recent edit to contextualise that phrase is a vast improvement on my efforts --- so once again, apologies. Regards. Mds 08:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Fifel ... I reeditted some of your re-editting. My informations about the Decimation are well-known in Hungary, but at/on/in the link of C. Mutti you can see it. It's in Hungarian, sorry, but I haven't got English sources. I hope the article is OK. now for you. If not, you can correct it (sorry, I have no time for discussing the article, but I won't revert your edits if they would be correct. I have done minor changes now, too). But I ask you for treat your resources' information careful. Maybe they've been written before 1990, by communists. Even if they had foreign (non-hungarian) editors, maybe they not correct, have not enough informations; cause we in Hungary just started processing a lot of documents from the past "red" ages (In these days, when I write this, a huge scandal come out because someone put on the web an unkonown and disputed list of secret agents ...)

Oh, please don't correct the name of Hungarian Red Army. They called them like this, it's an official name. Gubbubu 17:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gubbubu, I'll be doing some copyediting (mostly Anglicising your language to English norms) of your changes. Of course its the Hungarian Red Army in 1919 :). I'll also clarify that Lukacs can't be considered responsible for the /second/ period of persecution of Bibo. Fifelfoo 22:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry four bed Engglish, pleese! I was in a hurry. May bee I not spick English well, that's reel.

Please correct my informations about Bibo if you think you can and if you can. I'm don't sure in him (have resources but only a remark in it says Lukács attacked Bibo). I'm mainly sure in the information about/of Hamvas , he is a famous victim of Lukács. Gubbubu 00:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is Lukacs pronounced? As in, is the A really pronounced as an O sound, or is it the American O sound that's really a broad A-as-in-father? Someone have the IPA? 203.82.183.147 11:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (An Australian)

I don't speak Hungarian, but the British and American English rendering I've heard is roughly [lukɑtʃ] -- rhyming with Ed Koch. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it were Lukacs, then it would be a short broad O (as in "a lot"). But as it is Lukács, it is a long normal A like in father. pronounced roughly like "lou-kotch," is definitely wrong, no matter if it's pronounced like that by most English speakers. (U is pronounced like in room but short, and it's stressed.)--Messlo 30 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Yes it is Lukács, á is a long hungarian "aa-"sound like in the English word "file" or father or bar [ba:*]. Gubbubu 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

The problem with "lou-kotch" as an informal pronunciation guide is obviously a matter of (English) dialect variation. In my dialect of English it's roughly equivalent to [lukɑtʃ], but obviously in many others it isn't -- perhaps we should remove it and simply stick with [lukɑtʃ], a pronunciation with which your comment seems to roughly concur. -- Rbellin|Talk 30 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)

As of 2/24/10, there's a quite unhelpful Hungarian-language pronounciation on the English page. Might be nice to have the English phonetic equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.186.147 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I want to expand this article in a lot of areas. History and Class Consciousness should get a separate article as well. Hanshans23

What does this mean?

"As Lukács lived in the Soviet Union during the 1940s, he can be considered to have been an agent of the Soviet Security apparatus during this period, much as Imre Nagy was. (See Granville, 1995)."

Can be considered? What does this mean?

International communist intellectuals who lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s, who survived, survived because they were recruited to the State Security apparatus. "Can be considered," means that while there's no direct evidence in the case of Lukacs, the fact that survivors of the 1940s survived because they were recruited, means that we can consider, ie, believe, that Lukacs was a state security agent, at least during the 1940s. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a methodologically really problematic inference. Surely if you're going to accuse someone of being an "agent of the Soviet Security apparatus" (what exactly that means is unclear) you need better evidence than this somewhat brutal syllogism. Sindinero (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Claudio Mutti

Dear friends: Claudio Mutti is an outspoken neofascist. His opinions are fringe, his "scholarship" laughable. Any information based on his works has no place among the reliable sources, and should be removed from this and any other article. Dahn 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, It seems that the citation from Mutti, which is not just problematic in itself, traces back to a geocities page (!) maintained by the neonazi organization Pannon Front (!!). Now, is anybody going to do something about this? Dahn (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just bigotry: Mutti, although a neo-nazist, is an important scholar. His article provides sources. Moreover, it is sufficient to make clear that this is Mutti's opinion, as it was explicitly stated.Andrea Virga (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to take a long look over the following: WP:NOT, WP:V, and especially WP:RS, WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, the article actually cites nothing, but merely creates a mysterious link between statements in the text and what is, by all accounts, an unusable and, to say the least, highly objectionable external link - While Mutti's works could only be cited in an article about himself, the neonazi sites you link to ought not to be linked at all, per WP:ELNO. That I would be called "a bigot" over this is in exceptionally bad taste. And, btw: I'm sure Lukács' communist activities and a potential sinister aspect to them must have been discussed by some reliable source; if they'd only be discussed by these morons, they'd be exaggerations or lies. If someone wants to go into detail about these activities, provided such detail exists, a reliable source is needed. Pronto. Dahn (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, if anyone is unsure about Mutti's credentials, beyond the absurdity of the "although a neo-nazist, [he] is an important scholar" argument, let me cite some relevant verdicts on /Mutti's "scholarship".

1) "The publisher, Claudio Mutti, is a prominent member of the Italian far right. An admirer of Islamic fundamentalism and Franco Freda's brand of armed right-wing terrorism to provoke revolution, Mutti styles himself a 'Nazi Maoist'. His own imprint, Veltro, offers a wide range of books on symbolism, tradition, golden age myths, paganism and Islam, together with works by Nazis and fascists, including Horia Sima, Corneliu Codreanu, Robert Brasillach, and Holocaust denial texts. Steeped in the anti-modernist sentiment of Julius Evola, Mutti is drawn to the works of Traditionalists René Guenon and Frithof Schuon as a negation of the secular world. As a Muslim convert and a Third Positionist, Mutti combines anti-Semitism with anti-westernism, mirrored in his editions of Rûhollâh Khomeini, the Iranian mujâhidîn and its declarations of Holy War against the infidels." (the text goes on to discuss his theory that Hitler was "a Universal Restorer of a pristine order" etc.) - in Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, NYU Press, 2003, p.104-105

2) Mutti as a "radical Islamist", "one-time follower of Evola's follower Franco Freda, the proponent of armed spontaneity", a disciple of Colonel Quaddafi and Khomeini, a proponent of jihad against the modern world. This about his status in academia: "Mutti [...] lost his job at the University of Bologna and served a prison term for his terrorist activities"; "This translation of [Quaddafi's speeches] had been done by Mutti, presumably from French - Mutti, who had taught Hungarian and Romanian at the University of Bologna before his dismissal, does not know Arabic." Also: "Mutti is not known to have any significant personal following or to have engaged in any political or armed action after the 1980s. He is important, however, as one of the focal points in the late-twentieth century international network of Traditionalists, linking smaller Traditionalist groups in Romania, Hungary, Italy, France and Russia." - in Mark J. Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secrtet Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, Oxford UP, 2004, p.260

3) More of the above, plus references to Mutti as "a Third Positionists", noted for his "anti-Semitism", "virulent anti-Westernism", "neofascist war against the profane West", and his own claims about a "spiritual dimension of Nazism" etc. - in Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess, NYU Press, 1998, p.218

4) References to his activities in support of Libya, which included publishing Quaddafi (alongside the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...), founding the Lotta di Poppolo organization, whose name was chosen as a diversion, "because it did not carry any obvious rightist or fascist connotations; this would make it easier to woo left-wing students." Mutti's "bizarre political mutation in Italy known as Nazi-Maoism". His slogans are cited as "Long live the fascist dictatorship of the proletariat!", "Hitler and Mao united in struggle!" - Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists, Routledge, 2000, p.183

I could go on and on, but I've lost the time and the interest for now. As one can see from the above, Mutti's only reputation is not as a scholar, but as a terrorist, fascist activist, virulent antisemite and diversionary figure. If I'm allowed to read between the line, I'd also add that he has a reputation for being morally bankrupt. And this man is used as a reference for the more controversial aspects of Lukács' career, when, at any point in his life, as far as can be discerned from proper references, Lukács was a more moderate and mainstream figure than Mutti. Dahn (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pannon Front is not an organization but a journal on politology.
Was Mutti a neo-nazist (from which he is very far), the argument "although a neo-nazist, [he] is an important scholar" would indeed still be absurd, because the correct way to put it would be "a neo-nazist and an important scholar". For the two things have no logical connection whatsoever with each other.
If Mutti's scholarship (still far from being laughable) appears somewhat fragmented, it is because as Evola puts it, author-scholars like him are similar to rear-guards in a hostile territory (modernity) trying to catch up with an ever more distant main army (a traditional social-mental constitution). Because of his more elevated viewpoint, any single paper of Mutti is a greater achievement than the whole work of Lukacs and his "masters" and "disciples". (Both of the latter two expressions are all but blasphemies.)
It is not Mutti's work but Sedgwick's book which should not be used as reference, since it has been aptly refuted as being incorrect (even on the level of facts), inadequate, and biased; one which lacks any correct intentions. See [2] and [3]
Wolfsson (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can but point you back, straight to and directly the wikipedia policies on sources and content I outlined above. Your apparent quarrel is not with me, but with those policies, and I assure you I'm not interested in further debate on this subject: as long as you're basing the opposite claim on statements made by a neonazi propagandist with minimal scholarly credentials and a conviction for terrorism, while pushing more stuff based on personal pages, blogs, fanzines, canards and whatnot, there really isn't anything left to discuss. As a side note: while I don't share any of Lukács' views on anything, he is cited (profusely so) by countless reference works, even those who disagree with him, as an authority in his fields; Mutti is cited by such works only to be, well, ridiculed. And I'm sure anyone vaguely familiar with the goings-on in Eastern European countries is familiar with the retrospective mudslinging of various left-wing (and Jewish) historical figures at the end of which is a highly active but fringe extreme right desperately trying to score political points. No matter how controversial a figure Lukács was in reality (and there are plenty of reliable sources stated whatever is relevant about that controversy in an intelligent informative fashion), two wrongs won't make a right. They'll make a far right. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lukács influence on Heidegger

That History and Class Consciousness was an influence on 'Being and Time was the contention of Lucien Goldmann, but is there anywhere where Heidegger acknowledges this? The article presents it as a statement of fact Hanshans23 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Whenever I try to link to this article from my site, readers get taken to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/György_Lukács

and not the article itself.

This is because of the lettering and accents used in the title.

Does anyone know a way around this?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

---

try direct them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Lukacs Hanshans23 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks!

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

neo marxism

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [4] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

References and Further reading

I've just added a further reading section, in the hopes that this will be the beginning of a process in which we collect reliable sources on Lukacs and eventually integrate them into the article proper. Besides being poorly sourced, the article could use a section that deals with the evaluation of Lukacs' theoretical and literary-theoretical work. I think this is probably more important (if less catchy) than the main evaluative thrust of the article in its current state, namely was-he-a-Stalinist-or-wasn't-he.

I've also noticed that the references section isn't in wikipedia format. Part of the process of improving this article will thus have to be providing the text with inline citations and a proper references section, and moving all the other sources not cited in the article to the Further reading section. Sindinero (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Sindinero, the references do need to be put in Wiki Cite format; further more, there are a lot of 'Sources' listed in the References section but with no connection to the content written in the article itself. I think we should cull the Sources section, or determine what in the article is referencing the listed sources and cite it appropriately. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

This view was expressed in his later book The Historical Novel, as well as in his 1938 essay "Realism in the Balance". 70.42.240.6 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) The link for the Historical Novel links to the book written by Sir Herbert Butterfield in 1924 and not the novel written by Gyögy Lukacs. The link should simply be removed with the text kept the same.

 Done: [5]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Better written 'Life" section

I've noticed that some of what is included in this section is almost verbatim taken from the New World Encyclopedia about Lukacs. This is problematic, at the very least because it verges on plagiarism. This needs to be re-written, incorporating more sources (like from Lichtheim's book on Lukacs, for instance). Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The life section is not copied from the New World Encyclopedia. That website has copied Wikipedia. I made substantive contributions to the "Life" section in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs&type=revision&diff=30846625&oldid=29686174 My sources were Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism and the Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore. Hanshans23 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Young Marx

On the page, under "Under Stalin and Rákosi", it says that he only came into contact with the writings of the Young Marx in 1933 - however, no direct reference to this is made on the SEP page referenced, and Lukacs directly references Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" (1843-44, considered part of his 'Young', Hegelian epoch) in his essay "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" in 1923. Is this a mistake - can anyone with more knowledge about what Lukacs read, and when, please take a look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.129 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Stanford Encylopedia article referenced says "During this time, he first came into contact with Marx’s early works which had previously remained unpublished". I believe this refers to the early works of Marx that weren't published until the 20th century, such as the German Ideology and especially the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" -- Hanshans23 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nom de plume?

Is there any truth in the rumour he used the name George Lucas when writing in English?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep It Classy

Of what social-economic class did Lukács consider himself to be a member?173.61.95.154 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Ed Cetera

Realism in the Balance

The large section that is tagged as unsourced appears to just be an editor's direct synopsis/paraphrase of the work. The length is a bit excessive in this article. Would anyone object to moving it to the article Realism in the Balance? Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)