BOOK REVIEW 73 Marxism "which derives organic nature from the inorganic and through labour derives society from organic nature." This, Lukacs adds, -is perhaps the reason why the bourgeoisie is so receptive to the book particularly during the student movement days. From then on, helped by Lenin's criticism, the establishment of the phitosophicjl basis of the universality of Marxism became Lukacs' main concern which he was able to develop during his long stay at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, In this context Lukacs significantly emphasises the positive role of Stalin. Lukacs is of course fully aware of the necessity of a full critique of the Stalin era and the Moscow trials. In his 1957 postscript to Road to Marx (1933) he had emphasised the historical necessity of the trials and had reminded us that the central question then was tlie defeat of fascism. "Right or wrong, my Party", was Lukacs declared position. In the fragment he mentions that Bloch too in America refused to side with the Trotskyites. To weaken the Soviet Union by critique meant strengthening Fascism. In the conversations Lukacs sees the real problems of the trials in the fact that they continued a tactical line beyond the period in which it was necessary. After the Bukharin trial the opposition was defeated, notes Lukacs. "With Marx and Lenin the basic line of social development in a specific direction was given. Within this basic line certain strategic problems result in every period. Within this basic line the tactical problems arise. Stalin reversed this order. He considered the tactical problem as primary and derived the theoretical generalisations from it". But a full critique cannot ignore Stalin's historical contribution. For Lukacs it was extremely relevant that, in the philosophical debate initiated by Stalin against Deborin and his school, "Stalin repersented an extraordinarily important position which played a positive role in my development." Stalin attacked the Plekhanovian orthodoxy and rejected its claim to interpret Marx. He emphasised the Leninist position. Lukacs extended the critique to Mehring's incorporation of Kantian aesthetics into Marxism, and Plekhanov's positivist aesthetics. The central point made by Stalin was directed against eclecticism, according to which Marx's theory is relevant for socio-economic questions and requires "additions" for other areas. Lukacs states: "I interpreted Stalin's struggle against the Plekhanov orthodoxy to mean that Marxism is a universal Weltanschaung which therefore has its own aesthetics and which Marxism need not adopt from Kant or elsewhere". The Aesthetics and Ontology of Marxism were from then on Lukacs' central theoretical concerns. ANIL BHATTI* *Associate Professor, Centre of German Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.