Revolutionary Action: Balancing Spontaneity and Bureaucracy

The coexistence of spontaneity and bureaucracy in political action is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion within the fields of philosophy, political theory, and social movement studies. In this article, we will explore the coexistence of these two concepts within the context of political action, drawing on the ideas of Marxist philosopher George Lukács.

The coexistence of spontaneism and bureaucratism in political action is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion within the fields of philosophy, political theory, and social movement studies. In this article, we will explore the coexistence of these two concepts within the context of political action, drawing on the ideas of Marxist philosopher George Lukács.

Lukács was a prominent figure in the intellectual life of 20th century Europe, and his work has had a lasting impact on the fields of philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism. In his writings on revolution and socialist transformation, Lukács argued that revolution was a necessary precondition for the establishment of a socialist society, as it was the only way to overcome the structural barriers to change posed by capitalist society.

According to Lukács, revolution was not something that could be planned or controlled from above, but rather was a spontaneous, mass movement that emerged from the collective action of the proletariat (the working class). In this sense, revolution was a fundamentally spontaneous process, driven by the contradictions and crises of the capitalist system and the collective efforts of the working class to overcome them. As he wrote in “History and Class Consciousness,” “The proletariat can become the bearer of socialist consciousness only in the process of the class struggle, and it becomes such a bearer only in the course of the development of this struggle.” (Lukács, 1923, p. 132)

However, Lukács also argued that spontaneism alone was not sufficient to bring about revolutionary change, and that the working class needed to be guided by a clear and coherent theory of socialist change in order to be successful. This theory needed to provide a clear vision of what a socialist society would look like and how it would function, and it needed to be grounded in a deep understanding of the contradictions and crises of capitalist society. As he wrote in “History and Class Consciousness,” “The proletariat must know where it is going and what the society of the future will look like. Without this knowledge it cannot direct its struggle and cannot take the right road to victory.” (Lukács, 1923, p. 132)

In addition to the role of spontaneism in the revolutionary process, Lukács also recognized the importance of bureaucracy in socialist society. According to Lukács, bureaucracy was a necessary feature of socialist society, as it played a key role in coordinating the efforts of the working class and in ensuring the efficient and fair distribution of resources. However, he also argued that bureaucracy was a potential threat to socialist societies, as it could lead to the development of a new ruling class and the erosion of democratic control. In order to prevent this, he argued that it was necessary to establish democratic, decentralized forms of organization that could guide and coordinate the efforts of the working class towards the common goal of socialist transformation.

Lukács’s views on spontaneism and bureaucratism suggest that the coexistence of these two concepts in political action is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration and balance. On the one hand, spontaneism is a necessary element of the revolutionary process, as it allows the working class to develop its own consciousness and agency, and to create its own forms of organization and action. On the other hand, bureaucracy is a necessary feature of socialist society, as it plays a key role in coordinating the efforts of the working class and in ensuring the efficient and fair distribution of resources.

Finding the right balance between these two concepts is crucial for the success of political action and for the establishment of a socialist society. Without spontaneism, the working class may lack the agency and consciousness to bring about revolutionary change. Without bureaucracy, socialist society may struggle to coordinate and manage the efforts of the working class and to ensure the fair and efficient distribution of resources.

By drawing on the insights of Marxist philosopher George Lukács, we can better understand the importance of both spontaneism and bureaucracy in the revolutionary process and in the establishment of a socialist society, and work towards finding the right balance between these two concepts.

Lukács’s ideas on spontaneism and bureaucratism provide insight into the composite and multi-layered nature of political action and the challenges involved in achieving socialist transformation. While spontaneism is a necessary element of the revolutionary process, it must be balanced with a clear and coherent theory of socialist change in order to be successful. Similarly, while bureaucracy is a necessary feature of socialist society, it must be carefully managed and controlled in order to prevent the emergence of a new ruling class and the erosion of democratic control.

Lukács, G. (1923). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.