PROPAGANDA OR PARTISANSHIP?
Georg Lukacs
A bridged, and translated by Leonard F. Mins
MUCH MORE THAN A MATTER
of mere terminology is in-
volved in the question of whether proletarian literature is
tendentious.
We propose the term "partisanship" (instead of
"tendency"
I
as nne of its major characteristics in the belief
that this term il volves new theoretical insight into the nature
of our literatur
In so doing we are endeavoring to eliminate
a web of theoretical misconceptions and half-truths from our
literary viewpoint and to formulate the specific traits of our
literature more clearly and unmistakably than has been done
hitherto.
I.
What does the word "tendency" mean and how did it enter our
literary terminology? To begin with, "tendency" may have several mean-
ings. Marx defines it as "a law, the absolute fulfilment of which is re-
tarded, checked or weakened by counteracting factors"
(Das Kapital,
Vol. III, Part 1, p. 215, 5th German edition).
This meaning does not
concern us here, but it is mentioned since it cannot be allowed to vanish
from our terminology.
The more important connotation, one closer to
our problem, is "aim or endeavor." "Tendency" was widely used in this
sense during the first half of the nineteenth century in governmental and
police documents; censorship regulations and decrees suppressing certain
books constantly refer to "seditious tendencies." It is significant that
"tendency" was given a
subjective
connotation in these decrees.
I have been unable, unfortunately,
to trace the evolution of the term
.We
are using the term "propaganda," as employed by the bourgeois opponents
of proletarian literature,
as the best contemporary American equivalent for
Ttndtnz
(or tendency),
the word traditionally employed in Continental
literary criticism.
Hence "propaganda art" for "Tendenzkunst",
and so forth. (Translator's note).
36
