Anti-Communist bias distorted English reception of Lukács and Sartre

Evidence

Thus in the very working out of the problems of the Theory of the Novel itself there are decisive signs of that shift from a metaphysical to a historical view of the world that will be ratified by Lukács’ conversion to Marxism. Indeed, I would be tempted to reverse the causal relationship as it is generally conceived, and to claim that if Lukács became a Communist, it was precisely because the problems of narration raised in the Theory of the Novel required a Marxist framework to be thought through to their logical conclusion. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 372 (#responds-to, via linked claim)

Lukacs, the man who repudiated his own History and Class Consciousness because of criticisms by the Party hierarchy, never truly freed himself from the Leninist straitjacket. This was apparent in a number of ways. One of the better known is his practically unrelieved hostility to artistic modernism of all kinds.; To such writers as Proust, Joyce, and Kafka, Lukacs turned a deaf ear, because of their alleged formalism and subjectivity. Much of twentiethcentury art Lukacs associated with the alleged irrationalism in the writings of Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard. Along with this attitude went a rather conservative preference for the masterpieces of bourgeois culture and a less than critical deference for the products of socialist realism. This latter aspect of his work was perhaps due to an overly optimistic appreciation of the reconciliation of contradictions already achieved in socialist countries.’ Still another manifestation of his adherence to Leninist standards appeared in his relative indifference to the effects on art of technological innovation; class conflict remained the sole motor of history underlying his criticism. For all the insights contained in the vast corpus of his critical works, Lukacs’s compromise with political authority and his almost temperamental insensitivity to modernist art prevented his achieving the kind of critical flexibility that Western para-Marxists, such as those connected with Frankfurt School, were able to attain. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 537 (#responds-to, via linked claim)

After World War II, as the USA consolidated its position as the leading capitalist power in the world, so immense was the right-wing national consensus, so pathological the anti-communist phobia, that those lonely figures, such as Kenneth Burke, who continued to do serious radical work in literary and cultural theory were thoroughly marginalized. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 85 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Narration problems drove Lukács to Marxism, not the reverse — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 372; Postwar anti-communist consensus marginalized radical American literary theorists — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 85; Lukacs’s Leninist loyalty and anti-modernist taste limited his critical flexibility — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 537 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Narration problems drove Lukács to Marxism, not the reverse #responds-to (0.85) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 372
• Lukacs’s Leninist loyalty and anti-modernist taste limited his critical flexibility #responds-to (0.80) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 537
• Postwar anti-communist consensus marginalized radical American literary theorists #exemplifies (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 85