In recent years, some scholars both in China and overseas have identified a close connection between Lukács and Lenin in History and Class Consciousness, arguing that the construction of the historical subject by Lukács has a realistic foundation, given that it ultimately culminates in a Leninist conception of the proletarian party. This new interpretation of Lukácss approach to constructing the historical subject presents a certain challenge to traditional interpretive paradigms, subsequently stimulating renewed scholarly debates on the relationship between Lukács, Lenin, and Western Marxism. Although Lukácss theoretical framework was originally intended to guide revolutionary practice in Western Europe, the reliance on Hegels masterslave dialectic and Fichtes philosophy of action in constructing the historical subject made his entire theory strongly speculative. Even in his exploration of revolutionary pathways using the organizational theory and proletarian party as the mediating factors, his approach remains grounded in speculative reason. Admittedly, this emerging interpretation indeed provides certain theoretical support for the revolutionary theory of the contemporary Western left. However, in reinterpreting classical texts, we must avoid overgeneralization. It is essential not to overlook the fact that the practical orientation of his theory is built upon transcendentalism; doing so risks downplaying both the distinctive features and inherent limitations of Lukács as the founding figure of Western Marxism. Such an interpretive paradigm not only hinders our theoretical understanding of Lukácss transcendental construction of the historical subject but may also mislead contemporary leftwing movements in practice.
鈥�