Lukacs did not actually maintain a dualism between natural and human history.

Evidence

It is not entirely clear on the basis of what evidence Gramsci makes this admittedly very tentative criticism. In his own essay on Bukharin’s Manual (see introduction to this section) Lukacs observes ”… [the realm of the dialectic] is that of the historical process as a whole, whose individual, concrete, unrepeatable moments reveal its dialectical essence precisely in the qualitative differences between them and in the continuous transformation of their objective structure”. Even in his supposedly most “idealist” work, History and Class Consciousness , Lukacs does not appear to maintain a dualism between natural and human history. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 2755

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing whether Gramsci’s critique of Lukacs rested on secondhand reports rather than direct reading.
• XREF: Connects to the critical-theory debate over whether dialectics applies to nature, which recurs in later Frankfurt School and Islamophobia-theory debates. — connects to: Party fear prevented Lukács from reading materialist motifs into Hegel’s logic itself — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 136

Related

• Lukacs’s dialectic is historically monist, not dualist between nature and humanity (similarity 0.89)
• Party fear prevented Lukács from reading materialist motifs into Hegel’s logic itself (similarity 0.79)
• Human history is inseparable from the history of nature, so dialectics cannot exclude nature (similarity 0.78)